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

Alfred C. Downs, Plaintiff in error, v. Joseph Kissan U.S. 102 (1850)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0276 and id is 1 raw text is: 102 SUPREME COURT. Downs v. Kissam. viding for or regulating contracts of this kind. The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles. The object of the bill is to have this contract set aside and declared to be forfeited; and the prayer is, ' that the appellant's reinvestiture of title, to the license granted to the appellees, by reason of the forfeiture of the contract, may be sanctioned by the court, and for an injunction. But the in- junction he asks for is to be the consequence of the decree of the court sanctioning the forfeiture. He alleges no ground for an injunction unless the contract is set 4ide. And if the case made in the bill was a fit one for relief in equity, it is very clear that whether the contract ought to be declared forfeited or not, in a court of chancery, depended altogether upon the rules and principles of equity, and in no degree whatever upon any act of Congress concerning patent rights. And whenever a contract is made in relation to them, which is not provided for and regulated by Congress, the parties, if any, dispute a4ses, stand upon the same ground with other litigants as to the right of appeal; and the decree of the Circuit Court cannot be re- vised here, unless the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars. This appeal therefore, must be dismissed for want of juris- diction. Order. This cause came on to be. heard on the transcript of the rec- ord from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, and vas argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the Vant of jurisdiction. ALFRED C. DowNs, PLAINTIFF iN ERROR, v. JosEP r KissA. Where the Circuit Court instructed the jury, that, if any one of the mortgages giv- en in evidence conveyed more property than would be sufficient to secure the debt provided for in the mortgage, it was a circumstance from which the jury might presume fraud, this instruction was erroneous. Any creditor may pay the mortgage debt and proceed against the property; or he may subject it to the payment of his debt by other modes of proceeding. Ii error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. A writ of fieri facias issued on the 5th of January, 1842,

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