Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

v.

ing. 11 answer as to amount of losses was untrue, there was no liabnity under policy; Alabama, etc., Ing. Co. v. Garner, 77 Ala. 215, holding materiality of question of age was settled by terms of policy; Kelly v. Life Ins., etc., Co., 113 Ala. 465, 21 So. 365, bolding policy avoided, according to its terms, by false answer concerning prior application for insurance; Waters Knights of Damon, 105 Ga. 152, 31 S. E. 155, hoiding insured bound by warranties in application regarding use of liquors; Northwestern, etc., Co. v. Bodurtba. Ind. 53 N. E. 789, holding application, including an agreement," formed part of insurance contract, and breach would avoid policy; Johnson v. Maine, etc., Ins. Co., 83 Me. 188, 22 Atl. 108, holding answer respecting brother's Insanity, material, where insured had so stipulated with company; Co-operative Assn. v. Lefore, 53 Miss. 15, applying rule to stipulations respect. ing health of insured; Alve v. Mutual Reserve, etc., Assn., 147 Mo. 576, 49 S. W. 557, holding stipulations valid, that untrue an. swers as to health and prior insurance would vitiate policy; Continental, etc., Bank v. Farris, 77 Mo. App. 196, holding individual ioaning money to bank, had right to require approval of board of director3; Boyle v. Northwestern, etc., Assn., 45 Wis. 319, 70 N. W. 353, holding condition valid, that parties contract upon faith or good health of assured; dissenting opinion in Blumer v. Phænis ins. Cc., 45 Wis. 654, majority holding statement that one or two hairds slept in mill, material to risk. See 59 Am. Rep. 821, note.

Distinguished in Hoffman v. Supreme Council, etc., 35 Fed. 254, 255, holding question whether statements were essentially untrue, properly left to jury; Penn., etc., Ins. Co. v. Mechanics, etc., Co., 72 Fed. 431, 37 U. S. App. 692, 38 L. R. A. 63, and n., reviewing authorities, and holding materiality of question and answer as to diseases of insured was for the jury.

22 Wall. 57-60, 22 L. 729, SCOTT V. KELLY.

Appeal and error.- It is too late to object, upon writ of error. that State court had no jurisdiction to act where assignees in bankruptcy voluntarily submitted themselves to its jurisdiction, p. 59.

Cited and applied in Davis v. Friedlander, 104 U. S. 573, 26 L. 819, and Lindsey v. Corkery, 29 Gratt. 659, both holding assignee bound by adjudication in State court, between himself and attaching creditors; Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 453, 30 L. 464, 7 S. Ct. 282, holding assignee bound by decision of State court establishing lien; In re Moller, 8 Ben. 530, F. C. 9,699, and Augustine v. McFarland, 2 Fed. Cas. 215, where assignee was held bound by foreclosure suit.

Courts.- Decision of State court that bankrupt had no title to property, presents no question of which Supreme Court can take jurisdiction upon writ of error, pp. 59, 60.

VOL. VIII – 82

22 Wall. 60-67, 22 L. 764, PUTNAM v. DAY.

Review.- In absence of fraud, mistake or want of authority, a party cannot, on bill of review, rely upon fact that he never saw answer or cross-bill filed in his behalf, or that attorney failed to make the best defense, p. 64.

Approved in Taylor v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 3 McCrary, 488, 17 Fed. 568, holding parties bound to know terms of supplemental decree. See note, 6 Am. Dec. 716.

Review.- Bill of review confines court to examination of pleadings, proceedings and decree, and excludes consideration of proofs,

p. 65.

Cited and followed in Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99, 24 L. 382, holding it error to insert evidence in bill; Thompson v. Maxwell, etc., Co., 95 U. S. 397, 24 L. 484, refusing to consider facts regarding compromise; Shelton v. Van Kleeck, 106 U. S. 534, 27 L. 270, 1 S. Ct. 492, holding allegations in bill of review of facts, inconsistent with decree, bad; Willamette, etc., Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 7, 31 L. 631, 8 S. Ct. 814, reversing case upon questions of law alone; Barker v. Barker, 2 Woods, 242, F. C. 987, holding fact of lien not established by record, and, therefore, not reviewable; Irwin v. Meyrose, 2 McCrary, 247, 7 Fed. 535, reviewing authorities, and dismissing bill, no error appearing of record; Jourolmon v. Ewing, 85 Fed. 106, 56 U. S. App. 155, holding bill did not lie to correct erroneous decree resulting from misconception of evidence; Nashua, etc., R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 169 Mass. 161, 47 N. E. 608, holding bill defective in not setting out full record); Priestley's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 433, 17 Atl. 1086, 4 L. R. A. 506, and A., denying bill brought to review question of fact respecting commissions; Wroten's Assignee v. Armat, 31 Gratt. 261, and Thomson v. Brooke, 76 Va. 164, both courts finding no error in the record: Rawlings v. Rawlings, 75 Va. 89, dismissing bill seeking to review finding of executor's good faith; State Bank v. Blanchard, 90 Va. 25, 17 S. E. 743, holding, upon bill of review, fact of purchaser's good faith conclusively established by lower court; Farish v. New Mexico Min. Co., 5 N. Mex. 237, 21 Pac. 83, applying rule to appeal In equity case by writ of error. Cited generally, with approval, in Allen v. Wilson, 21 Fed. 884, Freeman v. Clay, 52 Fed. 7, 2 U. S. App. 254, and Reed v. Stanly, 89 Fed. 432. Cited in note, 2 McCrary, 250, and in extensive note, 20 Am. Dec. 167.

Review.- Where defendant admits in his answer that he owes subscription on stock, and prays for contribution, but record discloses no other defense, he cannot set up laches for first time in bill of review, pp. 65, 66.

Cited and applied in Gibson v. Green, 89 Va. 526, 37 Am. St. Rep. 889, 16 S. E. 662, holding statute of limitations could not be relied upon for first time on appeal.

Creditor's bih may be filed in different court from that in which aeditor obtains his judgment, p. 65.

Equity.- Practico of reciting pleadings and proceedings in de aree is abolished in Supreme Court, but decree may state conclusions of fact as well as of law, and often does, to render judg. ment more clear, p. 67.

Approved in M'Claskey v. Barr, 48 Fed. 131, holding pedigree of parties properly set forth in decree.

22 Wall. 67-77, 22 L. 825, RITCAIE v. FRANKLIN COUNTY.

Constitutional law.- General curative act of Missouri, March 21, 1868, to pay debts contracted by counties, without consent of voters, caused by erroneous construction placed on imperfect language of former act, giving authority to County Courts to borrow money and issue bonds for road purposes, is valid, pp. 75, 76.

Cited and followed as established authority in Grenada Co. Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 272, 28 L. 708, 5 S. Ct. 131, holding act of 1872, of Mississippi, requiring payment of bonds, issued without previous authority, valid; Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 364, 29 L. 635, 6 S. Ct. 417, sustaining curative act legalizing an election declaring in favor of county subscription to railroad; Bradley v. Franklin Co., 65 Mo. 639, reafirming principal case; Nolan Co v. State, 83 Tex. 200, 17 S. W. 829, sustaining act of 1885, validating county bonds; Redd v. Supervisors, 31 Gratt. 712, holding act confirming county subscription to railroad stock, valid; Lewis Co. v. Gordon, 20 Wash. 88, 54 Pac. 780, sustaining act providing for payment of expenses of town incorporated under unconstitutional act; dissenting opinion in Treadway v. Schnauber, 1 Dak. 271, 46 N. W. 476, majority holding extra session of legislature illegal, and county issue of bonds, made under its acts, void. Cited in note, 68 Am. Dec. 299; also 98 Am. Dec. 671, note, 98 Am. Dec. 680, note, and 51 Am. St. Rep. 860, valuable note.

Denied in Perrine v. Thompson, 17 Blatchf. 19, F. C. 10,997, holding New York act, validating irregularities of commissioners in issuing bonds, unconstitutional.

22 Wall. 77–81, 22 L. 564, MAXWELL V. STEWART.

Judgment. — Record of judgment is valid upon its face, if It ap pear that court had jurisdiction of subject-matter of action and of parties, and that judgment had in fact been rendered, p. 79.

Cited with approval and relied upon in Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 101, 35 L. 646, 11 S. Ct. 964, holding record of New York judgment duly exemplified; Walker v. Sturbans, 38 Fed. 300, holding judgment and order of sale in State court, valid; Woodbridge, etc., Co. v. Ritter, 70 Fed. 678, holding record of New Jersey judgment sufficient; Lehman, etc., Co. v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 626, 6 So. 45, giving full faith and credit to decree of Virginia court; Sammis v. Wightman, 31 Fla. 25, 12 So. 530, giving full credit to New York judgment; Moody v. Deutsch, 85 Mo. 245, holding judgment of trial court sufficiently formal where it showed relief granted, etc.; Pickering v. Templeton, 2 Mo. App. 431, holding entry sufficiently complete; Terry v. Berry, 13 Nev. 521, holding judgment valid, notwithstanding irregularity in form of judgment-roll; Gilchrist v. West Virginia, etc., Co., 21 W. Va. 118, 45 Am. Rep. 557, holding, under New York statute, personal judgment against foreign corporation not appearing, void; dissenting opinion in Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 647, majority holding court had no jurisdiction of defendant on account of Civil War.

Judgments.- Defense of payment in suit on a judgment, is not good when it does not anywhere appear that value of property taken under attachment in former suit was sufficient to discharge entire judgment, p. 79.

Judgments.- Trial by court, without waiver of jury, is at most only error, and judgment after such trial is not necessarily void; mere errors cannot be set up as defense to an action brought upon It, p. 79.

Cited and rule applied in Humphries v. District of Columbia, 174 U. S. 195, 19 S. Ct. 639, holding judgment not avoided by Irregularity in rendition of verdict; Hubbardston, etc., Co. v. Covert, 35 Mich. 264, holding record could not be rejected on ground that party was misnamed, etc.

Judgments.- Seizure of personal property, under attachment, is not necessarily a satisfaction of judgment afterwards obtained, though sheriff is responsible for exercise of ordinary care in preserving it; burden is on defendant in action of judgment to prove satisfaction, p. 80.

Approved in Taylor v. Felder, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 423, 23 S. W. 482, holding defendant required to show that levy of distress warrant resulted in satisfaction or reduction of claim; Chapman v. H. D. Lee, etc., Co., 7 Kan. App. 258, 53 Pac. 780, holding mere levy of attachment did not satisfy debt. See note, 58 Am. Dec. 353, and also note, 91 Am. Dec. 314.

Distinguished in Lackett v. Rumbaugh, 45 Fed. 82, holding judg. ment void and attachment proceedings nullities.

Judgments. Jurisdiction of person is presumed in favor of Judgment when record shows that party voluntarily appeared and submitted himself to jurisdiction, and filed demorrer and answer, and went to trial upon the issues, pp. 80, 81.

Cited in L'Engle v. Gates, 74 Fed. 515, holding want of jurisdicton waived by appearance and plea to the merits; dissenting opinion in Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 642, majority holding attor

[ocr errors]

ney could not waive client's rights created by state of rebellion and enter his appearance. Cited -generally in Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. 638. See note, 75 Am. Dec. 722.

Judgments.- Fraud cannot be pleaded to an action in one State upon judgment in another, p. 81.

Approved and followed in Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. 8. 3, 29 L. 536, 6 S. Ct. 243, sustaining action in Maryland on judgment obtained in Pennsylvania; Simmons V. Saul, 138 U. S. 459, 34 L. 1062, 11 S. Ct. 375, dismissing bill seeking to set aside probate proceedings in Louisiana, on ground of fraud; Barras v. Bidwell, 3 Woods, 7, F. C. 1,039, overruling defense that fraud was practiced by attorneys in former action; Union, etc., Co. v. Rochester, etc., Co., 29 Fed. 610, holding alleged collusive arrangement be. tween adverse parties in former action, not available in suit on judgment; Duff v. Hopkins, 33 Fed. 608, holding certain defenses to writ of scire facias, issued on revived judgment, not available; Peninsular, etc., Co. v. Eells, 68 Fed. 35, 32 U. S. App. 348, and Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. 348, 20 Atl. 120, holding decree of court of another State, not impeachable for fraud in collateral proceeding; Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co. v. Morgan, 47 U. S. App. 1, 76 Fed. 435, holding plaintiff bound by judgment obtained by his next friend, even if fraud were admitted; Board of Commrs. V. Platt, 79 Fed. 573, 49 U. S. App. 226, where fraudulent arrangement among parties to prior suit was alleged, but not allowed; Alkire, etc., Co. v. Richesin, 91 Fed. 84, holding judgment of State court conclusive; Ambler v. Whipple, 139 Ill. 324, 32 Am. St. Rep. 212, 28 N. E. 845, reviewing authorities, and holding plea of fraud inadmissible; Snow v. Mitchell, 37 Kan. 641, 16 Pac. 739, holding de fense in suit on judgment of fraudulent assignment in prior suit, unavailable; Mooney V. Hinds, 160 Mass. 471, 36 N. E. 484; holding fraud in decree of California court, could not be inquired into; Knapp v. Thomas, 39 Ohio St. 387, 48 Am. St. Rep. 468, holding an unconditional pardon could not be impeached for fraud in collateral and summary proceeding. See note, 2 Am. Dec. 46.

Distinguished in Sewall v. Sewall, 122 Mass. 161, 23 Am. Rep. 304, holding decree of divorce vold, where libellant fraudulently procured court's jurisdiction.

Judgments.- Nil debet is not good plea to an action upon judgment in another State, p. 81.

22 Wall. 81-98, 22 L. 738, HAYORAFT 1. UNITED STATES.

Sovereign cannot be sued in his own courts, except with his consent, p. 92.

War.- Cotton, in Civil War, has been uniformly held to baro been legitimate subject of capture, p. 93.

« ForrigeFortsett »