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

William B. Shields and others, Appellants, v. Robert R. Barrow U.S. 130 (1855)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0206 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. .Shields et al. v. Barrow. his duties are prescribed, nor inherently nor regularly ippropliate to his office; services which the law has, upon obvious principles of policy, imposed on another and a different agent, subordinate to the collector, the performance of which services it is made the duty of the collector to supervise and enforce. We are of the opinion that the collector could have no such claim, and therefore decide that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed. Ordter. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Coiumbia, holden in and for the county of Washington, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed. WILLIAM 3. SHIELDS AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, V. ROBERT R. BAR '.OW. A vendor sold an estate in Louisiana fora large sum of money, and received payment, from time to time, for nearly one half of the amount. Afterwards, he agreed to take back the property, upon the payment of an additjonal sum of money, which was secured to him by the promissory notes of six individuals, four of whom lived in Louisiana, and two in Mississippi. Becoming dissatisfied with this arrangement, the vendor filed a bill in the circuit court of the United States for Louisiana, against the two citizens of Mississippi, to set aside the agreement as having been improperly procured, and to restore him to his rights under the original sale. All the six persons with whom the second arrangement was made, were indorsers upon the notes origiially given by the vendee for the purchase-money, under the sale. The four parties to the compromise, who resided in Louisiana, not being suable in the circuit court of that State, and their presence, as defendants, being necessary, the court could not rescind the contract as to two, and allow it to stand as to the other four. Consequently, it could not pass a decree, as prayed. Neither the act of congress of 1839, (5 Stat. at Large, 321, § 1,) nor the 47th rule for he equity practice of the circuit courts, enables a circuit court to make a decree in equity, in the absence of an indispensable party, whose rights must necessarily be affected by such decree. The cases upon this point, the statute, and the rule examined. The bill should have been dismissed. The two Mississippi defendants answered. The bill, insisted that the compromise was made in good faith, and one of them filed a cross-bill against the vendor to compel him to carry it out. This cross-bill was also defective, as to parties, the other sureties and the vendee having an interest in the subject, so that, without their presence, no decree could be made.. The vendor then filed a petition, by way of amended bill, stating his willingness to carry out the compromise upon certain conditions, which he prayed the court to enforce. This was irregular. The rules about amendments, examined.

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