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

Samuel Sample, Israel W. Pickins, and Burwell Scott, Appellants, v. Shadrach Barnes U.S. 70 (1852)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0250 and id is 1 raw text is: 70 SUPREMfE COURT. Sample et al. v. Barnes. SAMUEL SAMPLE, ISRAEL W. PIORINS, AND BURWELL SCOTT, AP.PELLANTS, V. SHADRACH :BARNES. Where there was a judgment at law against a defendant in Mississippi, and he sought relief in equity, upon the ground that the consideralion of the contract was the introduction of slaves into the State, and consequently illegal a court of equity will not grant .relief, because the complainant was it paii ddicto with the other party. Moreover, such a defence would have been good at law, and the averments, that deception was practised to prevent the complainant from making the defence, are not sustained by the evidence in the case. And, further, after the judgment, the complainant gave a forthcoming bond, thus recognizing the validity of the judg- ment. THis was an appeal from tho Circuit Court of the United States for the Sout*hern District of Mississippi. The facts are all stated in the opinion of the court. It was argued, in a printed brief, for the appellants, by Jliessrs. Walker, Freeman, and Volney B. Howard. No counsel appeared for the appellee. The argument consisted chiefly in comments upon the testi- mony, and contending that giving a forthcoming bond did not recoanize the validity of the judgment. The giving and forfeiture of the forthcoming bond aid not deprive the party of his right to a decree for a new trial at law. It is, in legal effe-ct, little more than the ordinary bond of replevin. There was no judicial proceedings on the forfeiture, and no right, under the laws of Mississippi, to inquire into the irregu- larities, errors, or frauds of the original judgment. The giving of the bond therefor did not operate a delay in presenting his defence at law.. He could only make it in equity. It has been decided, in Mississippi, that the giving and for- feiting of a forthcoming bond operates as an extinguishment of the original judgment. Bit this has been held with reference to judgment liens and process. The courts would not, of course, permit an execution on the original judgment, and on the statu- tory judgment on the forthcoming bond, or sustain liens on both judgments. The courts of that State, however, have fully re- cognized the principle, that the statutory jud!gment rested entirely on the judicial judgment, and have held that the former could nu6 b. supported without the latter, and became void on its reversal. Hoy v. Couch, 5.How. Miss. Rep. 188. If, therefore, the appellant had a good .cause for-a new'trial in chancery, he did not: lose it by giving the forthcoming bond.- So far as the -merits and the equity is concerned, both proceedings are but one judgment. The statutory proceeding is only held'a judgment, as EL mere legal fiction, and cannot stand in the way of a court of equity.

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