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

Richard C. Stockton, Appellant, v. James C. Ford U.S. 418 (1856)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0195 and id is 1 raw text is: 418 SUPREME COURT. . Stockton v. Ford. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice DANIEL, and Mr. Justice NELSON dissented. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. I dissent from the opinion of the court, being of opinion that the grounds of objection are not distinctly and specifically set forth in the protest, within the meaning of the act of Congress, and that the protest did not apprise the collector of the particular objection taken at the trial, and which could easily have been removed by another appraisement if it had been brought to the notice of the collector in the pootest. Mr. Justice DANIEL and Mr. Justice NELSON concurred with the Chief Justice. RICHARD C. STOCKTON, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. FORD. In the case of Stockton v. Ford, reported in 11 Howard, 232, this court decided the following propositions, namely: - 'rWhere there was a judgment which had been recorded under the laws of.Louisiana and thus made equivalent to a mortgage upon the property of the debtor, and the plaintiff assigned this judgment, and was then himself sued and had an execution issued against him, his rights under this recorded judgment could not be sold under this execution, because he had previously transferred all those rights. The attorney who had recovered the judgment which was thus recovered and as- signed, and who stood as attorney to the assignee, was not at liberty to purchase it at the sale on execution, for his own benefit. The purchase enured to the benefit of the client. 'And in the report of the case it is stated at page 234, that the assignment was made, inter alia, to cover the attorney's fees and other costs. The court now decides, 1. That the present plaintiff being the same, the validity of the assignment, as to him, was decided in the former case. 2. The question, under the assignment, for attorney's fees was necessarily involved, and should have been made in the former trial. The former suit, therefore, consti- tutes a bar to the present. 3. The evidence now shows that no censure could be properly attributed to the attor- ney for his share in the transaction. Tins was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. A full history of the transactions which led to the dispute is given in the report of the case of Stockton v. Ford, 11 How. 232. It was submitted, on printed arguments, by M2r. Stockton and Mr. Johnson, for appellant, and by MAfr. Duncan, for appellee. The arguments were so connected with the facts of the case, that it is impossible to give the points by themselves.

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