Beals v. Illinois Co
| Decision Date | 03 February 1890 |
| Citation | 133 U.S. 290,10 S.Ct. 314,33 L.Ed. 608 |
| Parties | BEALS v. ILLINOIS, M. & T. R. CO. et al. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 290-292 intentionally omitted] H. H. Denison and A. G. Vanderpoel, for appellant.
Geo. D. Reynolds, for appellees.
GRAY, J., after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The irregular form in which the plaintiff's case is presented need not be dwelt upon, because, in any possible aspect of the controversy between the parties, the result is not doubtful. The former judgment, upon which the plaintiff anticipated that the defendants would rely, is not described in the amended bill otherwise than by reference to a plea to the original bill, neither of which is made part of the record transmitted to this court. But the pleas to the amended bill clearly identify the judgment drawn in issue. The plaintiff's replication is, in terms, only to 'the answers' of the three defendant corporations, and not to their pleas, although each of them had filed a plea, and the only answers in the cause were those filed by two of them in support of their pleas. But it is immaterial to consider whether the effect of the submission of the case to the court 'upon the bill, pleas, answers, and replication,' after the defendants had moved for judgment for insufficiency of the replication, was, so far as the pleas were concerned, to set down the case for hearing upon the bill and pleas, or to treat the replication as taking issue on the pleas as well as on the answers. In the one view, the facts relied on by the defendants were conclusively admitted to be true; in the other view, so far as they were responsive to the allegations of the bill they were conclusively proved by the answers under oath, which the plaintiff introduced no evidence to control. Mitf. Pl. (4th Ed.) 301, 302; Rules 33 and 38 in Equity; Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303, 315, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 534; Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441. Upon the facts thus established, no ground is shown for maintaining the bill. The former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, to which not only the railroad company that issued the bonds, but the surviving trustee under the mortgage made in the name of another company to secure the payment of those bonds, were made parties. The bondholders were thus fully represented in that suit, and bound by the decree canceling and annulling the bonds and mortgage, unless the decree was fraudulently obtained. Kerrison v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Sur. Co. v. State Bank of Humboldt, Neb.
... ... v. Robbins, 14 How. 584, 14 L.Ed. 552, fell in the first ... class of cases, and the complainant was defeated. Beals ... v. Illinois, etc., Railroad Co., 133 U.S. 290, 10 ... Sup.Ct. 314, 33 L.Ed. 608, was a case based upon fraud in ... obtaining the judgment, ... ...
-
Waybright v. Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...the Ibs case, the Supreme Court cites Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.S. 319, 330, 9 S.Ct. 739, 33 L.Ed. 184, 191; Beals v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 133 U.S. 290, 10 S.Ct. 314, 33 L.Ed. 608; Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U.S. 155, 23 L.Ed. 843; Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S......
-
State ex rel. Merriam v. Ross
...and whatever binds him, if he acts in good faith, binds them. Shaw v. Railroad, 100 U.S. 605; Richter v. Jerome, 123 U.S. 233; Beales v. Railroad, 133 U.S. 290; Jones Railroad Securities [Ed. 1879], secs. 361, 433; Knapp v. Railroad, 20 Wall. 117; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Campb......
-
Bechtel Trust Co. v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co.
...v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 L.Ed. 179; Knapp v. Railroad Company, 20 Wall. 117, 22 L.Ed. 328; Beals v. Illinois, etc., Railroad Co., 133 U.S. 290, 10 S.Ct. 314, 33 L. Ed. 608; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U.S. 500, 10 S.Ct. 598, 33 L.Ed. I am further of opinion that in a suit to foreclose a c......
-
An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
...although not a party as an individual, but only through representation by the company"); see also Beals v. Illinois, Mo. & Tex. R.R., 133 U.S. 290, 295 (1890) (considering bondholders fully represented and bound by a decision in a suit in which the trustee was a party); Kerrison v. Stew......