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

Crosby v. Buchanan U.S. 420 (1875)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0459 and id is 1 raw text is: CROSBY V. BUCHANAN. Syllabus. been rendered. On the 31st of January an appeal from the judgment was taken to the Supreme Court of the State. This was clearly the appropriate remedy for the correction of the errors of the District Court, if there were any. The action of the District Court in refusing the removal does not appear to have been presented to the Supreme Court upon this appeal. It could not properly have been presented, be- cause the appeal was from the judgment alone, and this action was subsequent to the judgment and independent of it. We act only upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. Only such questions as either have been or ought to have been passed upon by that court in tbe regular course of its proceedings can be considered by us upon error. WRIT OF ERROR DISMISSED. CROSBY V. BUCHANAN. I. A., in 1812, made a deed to V. conveying to him valuable estates, V. by a separate instrument, agreeing that if A. would, within five years, pay to him a certain sum ($14,500), he would convey to A.'s children, then infants, a part of this estate, and convey also to them a part of certain other estates. Soon afterwards V. acknowledged that A. had paid to him a large part ($11,600) of the money to be paid. On proceedings in equity many years afterwards, in the Circuit Court of the United States, the children, now become of age, prayed for- 1st. A dancellation of the deed by A., as having been fraudulently pro- cured by V. 2d. That if this would not be decreed, then, on payment by the children of the balance with interest, for a specific performance by V. of his con- tract to convey the two parts of the estates which he had agreed to con- vey, if $14,500 were paid in five years. 8d. If the court would make neither of these decrees, then that it would decree that V. should refund with interest the $11,600 purchase-money that had been paid to him. The Circuit Court in 1853 refused to decree a cancellation of A.'s deed, refused also to decree that V. should specifically perform his agreement to convey; but as to the return of the $11,600 purchase-money paid, the court said that it could not pass on that matter, proper parties not being before the court, and made no decree about it. Proper parties came in, and after hearing, the court refused to order a return of the purchase- [Sup. Ct.

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