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

Frederic D. Conrad, Plaintiff in error, v. David Griffey U.S. 38 (1854)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0226 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. Conrad v. Griffey. quire into the state of the trust, nor is he responsible for the faithful application of the money unless ie knew, or had sufli- cient information at the time, that the guardian contemplated a breach of trust, and intended to misapply the money, or was in fact, by the transaction, applying it to his own private pur- pose. The cases on this subject are reviewed by Cancellor Kent in Field v. Schieffelin, 7 Johns. Chan. 150. In order to follow trust funds which have been transferred to third persons, there must be a breach of trust in their transfer, and a collusion by the purchaser or assignee with the guardian, executor, or trustee. If Brandon had taken the negroes belonging to plaintiff from his guardian, in payment of his debt, knowing the guardian was insolvent, and abusing his trust, a court of equity would compel him to return them to the ward, or pay their full value. But, in the case before us, Camp was dealing with his own property, and there is no pretence of any collusion with him by Brandon in the abuse of his trust. He has receivEd nothing which be- longed to the ward, or which he is under any obligation to restore to him. So far as the interest of the complainant were affected by this transaction, the object of it was to benefit, not to injure him. He may therefore assume the contract, and demand a specific execution .of it from the defendant, but has shown no right to rescind it and recover the money advanced in execution of it. The decree of the court below is therefora affirmed. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed, by this court, that the decree of the said District Court, in this cause, be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs. FnEDERIC D. CONRAD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. DAviD GRIFFEY. In 11 Howard, 480, it is'said, Where a witness was examined for the plaintiff, and the defendant offered in evidence aceelarations which he h id made of a contradictory character, and then the plaintiff offered to give in evidence others, affirmatory of the first, these last affirmatory declarations were not admissible, being made at a time posterior to that at which he made the contradictory declarations given in evi- dence by the defendant. The case having been remanded to the Circuit Court under a rentrefacias de nero, the plaintiff gave in evidence, upon- the new trial, the deposition taken under a recent commission of the same witness whose deposition was the subject of the former

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