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

John H. Bennett, Plaintiff in error, v. Samuel F. Butterworth U.S. 669 (1851)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0259 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1850. 669 Bennett v. Butterworth. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Dis- trict of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On considera- tion whereof, it is ordered and decreed by this court that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed and annulled, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said District Court, with directions to dismiss the petition of the claimants. JouN H. BENNETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. SA IUEL F. BUTTERWORTH. In Texas, the common law has been adopted, but the forms and rules of pleading in common law cases have not; and although the forms of proceedings and prac- tice in the State courts have been adopted in the District Court of the United States, yet such adoption must not be understood as confounding the principles of law and equity; nor as authorizing legal and equitable claims to be blended together in one suit. The Constitution of the United States has recognized the distinction between law and equity, and it must be observed in the federal courts, although there is no distinction between them by the laws of Texas. Where a petition was filed claiming certain negroes, to whom the defendant set up a title as being his own property, and the jury brought in a verdict awarding a sum of money to the plaintiff, which was released, and then the court gave judgment that the plaintiff should recover the negroes, these proceedings were irregular, and. the judgment must be reversed. They cannot be assimilated to proceedings in chancery, or treated as such by this court. There is nothing like a bill or answer, as prescribed by the rules of this court, nor any statement of the evidence upon which the judgment could be revised. The casemust, therefore, be considered as a-case at law, the rules of which require that the verdict must find the matter in issue between the parties, and the judg- ment must follow the verdict. Here neither was the ee, and the errors being patent upon the records, the judg- ment i'. open to revision in this court, without any motion in arrest of judgment being made or exception taken in the court below. THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the District of Texas. In 1848, Buttenvorti filed the following petition against Bennett :- To the Honorable J. C. Watrous, Judge of Lhe District Court of the United States for the District of the State of Texas, and which court has also Circuit Court powers. The petition of Samuel F. Butterworth, who is a citizen of the State of New York, against John H. Bennett, who is a citi- zen of the State of Texas, would respectfully represent unto

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