About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Francis Warner, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cephas H. Norton, Albert Jewett, Benjamin C. Busby, John C. Phelps, John J. Phelps, Isaac N. Phelps, and James Beman, Defendants U.S. 448 (1858)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0182 and id is 1 raw text is: 448 SUPREME COURT. Warner v. Norton et al. to protest it for non-acceptance. The proof of a parol contract, that it should not be presentable till a distant, uncertain, or undefined period, tended to alter and vary, in a very material degree, its operation and effect. (See Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 John., 192.) Any number of conflicting cases on this subject might be cited. It will be sufficient to refer to the decisions of this court, those of Texas, where the suit was brought, and of Lou- isiana, where the contract was made. In the Bank of United States v. Dunn, (6 Peters, 56,) this court have declared that there is no rule better settled or more salutary in its application than that which precludes the ad- mission of parol evidence to contradict or substantially vary the legal import of a written agreement. The case of Broch- more v. Davenport, 14 Texas Rep., 602, a case precisely simi- lar to the present, adopts the same rule. The case of Robishat v. Folse, 11 Louisiana, and of Barthet v. Estebene, 5 Ann. Rep., 315, and several others, acknowledge the same doctrine, thereby overruling -some early cases in touisiana which had departed from it. This being the only point urged by plaintiff in error as a ground of reversal, the judgment of the court below is affirmed. FRANCIS WARNER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. CEPHAS H. NORTON, ALBERT JEWETT, BENJAMIN C. BUSBY, JOHN C. PHELPS, JOHN J. PHELPS, ISAAC N. PHELPS, AND' JAMES BEMAN, DE- FENDANTS. Where a sheriff was sued for taking goods under an attachment, which goods had been previously assigned under circumstances which were alleged to be fraudu- lent, it was proper for the court to charge the jury, that if they believed, from the evidence, that the sale was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors, it was invalid as against the defendant: and that whether the sale was or was not fraudulent was a question of fact, to be determined by the jury under all the circumstances of the case; that if the sale were secret, and no means taken to apprise the public of it, these were facts which threw suspicion upon the transaction, but did not make the sale fraudulent in law as against the defendant. A decision an a motion for a new trial, being addressed to the discretion of the court, is no ground for a writ of error. THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. It was an action of trespass brought by Torton, Jewett, & Busby, against Warner, for taking certain goads in a storehouse in the village of Lasalle. Warnerj ustified the taking, as sheriff of Lasalle county, under certain writs of attachment against one Haskins, the former owner.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most