« PreviousContinue »
2. An agreement to convey when the grantor shall be prepared to execute deeds in the proper form, does not give “color of title,” within the above statute, to the intended grantee. — Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wallace, 116.
3. The running of the Statute of Limitations, on a cause of action by a citizen of New Hampshire against a citizen of Arkansas, was suspended while the courts of the latter State were closed by the war. – Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wallace, 532. See Court of CLAIMS, 1.
LOUISIANA. — See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 9.
MASSACHUSETTS. — See WILL.
MEXICO. — See CALIFORNIA, 1.
MORTGAGE. 1. When all the bonds covered by a mortgage have been issued, the court cannot authorize a further issue under the same security, although a foreclosure has been decreed for less than the face of the bonds. - Vose v. Bronson, 6 Wallace, 452
2. A railroad being sold on foreclosure, holders of mortgage bonds surrendered the same, and took certificates of stock in a new company formed by the purchasers (the former bondholders), in pursuance of the scheme of the sale. Held, that they could not afterwards object to the confirmation of the sale. Neither could a bondholder whose payment was a condition of the order. – Crawshay v. Soutter, 6 Wallace, 639.
3. A bill, by a purchaser under a mortgage of a whole road and rolling stock, against one under a prior mortgage of a section of the same, claiming certain rolling stock, was dismissed on the facts (MILLER, J., dissenting). - Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wallace, 742; s.c. 2 Wallace, 609. See BILLS AND NOTES, 2; EVIDENCE, 1; Tax.
NATURALIZATION. — See ALIEN.
NOTICE. — See INDIAN.
OFFICE. C. being mayor, “ to continue in office two years, and until a successor is duly elected,” was declared re-elected by the judges, but the city council declared A. to be. C. then got judgment of ouster on quo warranto in the Federal court. A. took a writ of error, giving a suspension bond. The writ was held, in the court below, to be a supersedeas of the ouster, and a mandamus was refused to C. The writ of error was afterwards dismissed, and C. sues on the bond. Held, that, by the judgment of ouster against A., C. was entitled to the office, and that the measure of damages was the salary received by A., pending the writ, while C. was deprived by the writ. — United States v. Addison, 6 Wallace, 291.
Ohio. - See REMAINDER.
OREGON. — See LAND.
PARTITION. A Circuit Court cannot entertain a bill for partition of descended lands.by an heir, when some of the other heirs, being citizens of the District of Columbia, cannot be brought before it; and a conveyance by said citizens to a citizen of a State, made for no consideration, that he may become a party to the bill, he agreeing to reconvey, on request, will not give jurisdiction. The Act of Feb. 28, 1839, does not change the previous rule in equity (CHASE, C.J., CLIFFORD and FIELD, JJ., dissenting). – Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wallace, 280. PARTNERSHIP. -See Joint DEBTOR; TENANT IN COMMON.
PATENT. — See LAND.
PLEADING AND PRACTICE. 1. Judgment affirmed, because the bill of exceptions was not signed or sealed by the judge below, and was not shown to have been submitted to him. — Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wallace, 355.
2. An order settling the terms of a final decree was entered Nov. 28, 1866. Said decree was entered Dec. 5, 1866, “as of Nov. 28, 1866.” Held, that the term to which an appeal should be taken was settled by the actual date (Dec. 5).
The amount of an appeal bond, taken under Judiciary Act, $ 22, may be reduced by the Supreme Court. — Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wallace, 153.
3. An appeal dismissed (5 Wallace, 824) for what now appeared to have been the neglect of the clerk, was re-instated. — Alviso v. United States, 6 Wallace,
4. Two writs of error, by three plaintiffs in error, were dismissed; in one suit, the citation named four, in the other, the names in the citation differed from those in the writ, and in both, the bonds gave the name of but one. — Kail v. Wetmore, 6 Wallace, 451.
5. A writ of error, made returnable on a day other than the first day of the term, as fixed by law, was dismissed. — Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, 6 Wallace, 246.
6. The return of a copy of a writ of error to the Supreme Court is sufficient, under Judiciary Act, $ 22, when the original has been destroyed during the war, without the fault of plaintiff in error.
A writ of error is not void because it does not show which of the parties named therein was plaintiff and which defendant in the court below. (The fact appeared on the record.) — Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wallace, 355.
7. A motion to revive a writ of error, on death of a party, by substituting his widow and heirs, is irregular. The court below should be applied to, to revive the suit in their name, and then a new writ could issue. — McClane v. Boon, 6 Wallace, 244.
8. The Act of May 19, 1828, § 3, re-enacted Aug. 1, 1842, having been made part of the law of Kansas by the Act of Jan. 29, 1861, § 4, an execution and sale by the marshal in said State, not made according to its laws, is void. – Smith v. Cockrill, 6 Wallace, 756.
9. In a redhibitory action, by a purchaser of slaves in Louisiana, the defendant pleaded a general denial of the alleged defects, and also that the auctioneer, at the time of the sale, declared, at defendant's request, that the slaves must be examined by the purchaser's physician before delivery, but that plaintiff removed them without examination, and, if he had suffered any loss, that was the cause. Held, that the two pleas were well presented together.
What is reasonable diligence, on the part of the purchaser, in apprizing the vendor of defects, is a question for the jury, though the code allows one year for redhibitory actions. — Andrews v. Hensler, 6 Wallace, 254.
10. A motion for leave to file a bill in equity under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is to be heard ex parte. — State of Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wallace, 241.
11. Failure to obtain leave to file an amended bill, and want of a replication, if not objected to in the court below, are waived. They are also within Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 32. Decision on the facts as to alleged fraudulent conveyances. — Clements v. Moore, 6 Wallace, 299.
12. When it is alleged that the value in controversy gives appellate jurisdiction in admiralty, but the fact does not appear of record, an opportunity may be allowed to prove it. — The Grace Girdler, 6 Wallace, 441.
13. A libel for prize not being supported by the evidence, but a prima facie case of violation of municipal law being shown, restitution of the property was refused until the libellant should have had reasonable time to file a new libel. – The Watchful, 6 Wallace, 91.
See Collision, 1; CORPORATION ; Costs; COURT OF CLAIMS; ERROR; EviDENCE, 2; Joint DEBTOR; JURISDICTION, 3, 5–9; LIEN, 3; PARTITION; VERDICT, 2.
POWER. — See Will.
PRIZE. Part of a cargo, on a vessel condemned as prize, was restored on the facts; a part belonging to Mexican citizens residing in enemy's country was condemned. - The Flyiny Scud, 6 Wallace, 263. See BLOCKADE; LIEN, 2; PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 13.
PROMISSORY NOTE. — See BILLS AND NOTES.
PUBLIC USES. - See CALIFORNIA, 3.