CONRAD'S LOTS

U.S. | 1873-10-01

Justices CLIFFORD, DAVIS, and FIELD dissented from the judgment rendered, and wore of opinion that only so much of the judgment of the Circuit Court should bo reversed as confirmed the sale made under the decree of the District Coart.

20 Wall. 115 Supreme Court of the United States (1873) Positive Treatment

Also reported at: 22 L. Ed. 328 · 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1492 · SCDB 1873-193

Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice STRONG

Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

Wo have just decided in the case of the United States v. Ten Lots of Ground, the property of C. M. Conrad (it being a. writ of error sued-out by the United States), that the -judgment of the Circuit Court was erroneous, and reversed it, ordering that the decree of confiscation be-affirmed. This leaves nothing upon which the present writ of error can act. The judgment having been reversed, the order of confirmation of the sale, as well as tho.ordcr of distribution, fall with it. We can,-therefore, only repeat the judgment given in the former case, which was a judgment of reversal.

Judgment reversed.'- Justices CLIFFORD, DAVIS, and FIELD dissented from the judgment rendered, and wore of opinion that only so much of the judgment of the Circuit Court should bo reversed as confirmed the sale made under the decree of the District Coart.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Rosecrans v. William S. Lozier, Inc., 142 F.2d 118 (8th Cir. 1944)

…d collect, though under obligation of turning over the proceeds to Winder. Even under such circumstances his citizenship would be controlling. Curb & Gutter Dist. No. 37 v. Parrish, 8 Cir., 110 F. 2d 902; Knapp v. Troy & Boston R. Co., 20 Wall. 117, 22 L.Ed. 328. In Kansas, where this action arose, every chose in action is assignable, except a claim for tort. Kansas Midland Ry. Co. v. Brehm, 54 Kan. 751, 39 P. 690. This also is the law of Missouri (Keeley v. Indemnity Co., 222 Mo.App. 439, 7 S.W. 2d 434); l…
First Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co. (Kendrick, 98 F.2d 416 (8th Cir. 1938)

…otherwise disqualified such trustee is an indispensable party and the joinder of a beneficiary will not defeat jurisdiction. Susquehanna & W. V. R. & Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 175, 20 L.Ed. 179; Knapp v. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 123, 22 L.Ed. 328; Dodge v. Tulleys, 144 U.S. 451, 456, 12 S.Ct. 728, 36 L.Ed. 501; Bullard v. Cisco, 290 U.S. 179, 190, 54 S.Ct. 177, 181, 78 L.Ed. 254, 93 A.L.R. 141; Hamer v. New York Railways Co., 244 U.S. 266, 37 S.Ct. 511, 61 L.Ed. 1125; Richter v. Jerome, 123…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw