1 F.Cas. 1186 (C.C.D.Kan. 1870), 562, Arnott v. Webb

Docket Nº:562
Citation:1 F.Cas. 1186
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:ARNOTT v. WEBB 1 Dill. 362
Attorney:Thatcher & Wheat, for plaintiff. Webb, Burns & Case, for defendant
Judge Panel:Before DILLON, Circuit Judge, and DELAHAY, District Judge. (DILLON, Circuit Judge, and DELAHAY, District Judge, concurring.)
Court:Circuit Courts, D. Kansas

Page 1186

1 F.Cas. 1186 (C.C.D.Kan. 1870)

1 Dill. 362

ARNOTT

v.

WEBB

No. 562

Circuit Court, D. Kansas

1870

Thatcher & Wheat, for plaintiff.

Webb, Burns & Case, for defendant

Before DILLON, Circuit Judge, and DELAHAY, District Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

(DILLON, Circuit Judge, and DELAHAY, District Judge, concurring.)

Held, 1. That the defendant was not estopped by the record of the New York judgment, from showing as a defence that he was never served with process, and never appeared to the action, and never employed, or authorized, or assented to the employment

Page 1187

of the counsel who filed the answer. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. [47 U.S.] 163; Harshey v. Blackmarr, 20 Iowa, 161, and cases cited at pages 172, 173; Rogers v. Gwinn, 21 Iowa, 58; Bryant v. Williams, Id. 329; Pollard v. Baldwin, 22 Iowa, 328; 5 Amer. Law Reg. (N.S.) 385. Held, 2. That if after the rendition of said judgment in New York, one of the joint debtors, paid the same to the creditor, and colorable procured an assignment thereof to be made to the present plaintiff, the latter could not recover thereon, even though he may have loaned the said judgment debtor the money with which he paid the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP