Ballard v. Searls

Citation9 S.Ct. 418,130 U.S. 50,32 L.Ed. 846
PartiesBALLARD v. SEARLS
Decision Date05 March 1889
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Charles J. Hunt and A. B. Browne, for appellant.

A. G. N. Vermilya, for appellee.

BRADLEY, J.

The appellant has made a motion that the decree appealed from in this case, so far as it affects the said appellant, be reversed, and that the cause may be remanded to the circuit court, with direction to dismiss the bill. This motion proposes that the decree be reversed without argument of the cause, in view of extrinsic facts, which are made to appear by the records of this court and of the circuit court, and by affidavits. If such a course can be properly taken in any case, we think it would be improper in the present, since the decree may be perfectly correct and free from objection on the facts of the case as they appear upon the record, and it is possible to be correct, notwithstanding the facts alleged by the appellant. These facts, however, are of such a character that the appellant may be subjected to great injustice if the cause should go to hearing on the appeal in the present condition of the record; and, as they have occurred since the appeal was taken, there seems to be no mode of affording relief to the appellant except by sending the cause back to the circuit court for the purpose of allowing supplementary proceedings to be had in that court. The facts as stated by the appellant, and not denied by the appellee, are as follows: 'On the 12th day of July, 1880, Anson Searls, the appellee in this cause, filed in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan his bill of complaint against Alva Worden and John S. Worden, for the infringement of a patent, and such proceedings were had in the cause that on the 5th day of September, 1883, a decree was entered in said cause in said circuit court whereby it was decreed that the said Alva Worden and John S. Worden infringed the patent, and should pay over to the said Anson Searls $24,960.31. That upon the entry of said decree the defendants appealed the case to this court. But the defendants Alva Worden and John S. Worden were unable to give the necessary bond to operate as a supersedeas bond upon said appeal. On the 17th of September, 1883, the complainant issued an execution on his decree, and placed it in the hands of the marshal of said district. On the 18th of September, 1883, the marshal, under the execution, levied upon certain lots in the city of Ypsilanti, county of Washtenaw, and upon certain lands in the town of Sumpter, county of Wayne, all in the state of Michigan, in the Eastern district thereof, the property of the said appellant, Harrison H. Ballard, and on other lands in the city of Ypsilanti, belonging to the said Alva Worden and John S Worden, but which were mortgaged to Mary Ann Andrews, Henry M. Curtis, Henry Van Tuyl, and Charles King. That, on the 10th day of October, 1883, the said Anson Searls, in aid of his execution against the Wordens, filed in the said circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan his bill of complaint against Harrison H. Ballard, Mary A. Andrews, Henry M. Curtis, Henry Van Tuyl, Charles King, Alva Worden, and John S. Worden, to set aside as fraudulent and void, as to the creditors of the said Alva Worden and John S. Worden, the conveyances under which the said Harrison H. Ballard held the lands so levied upon; and also the mortgages given by the said Alva Worden and John S. Worden on the said lands belonging to them to the said Mary Ann Andrews, Henry M. Curtis, Henry Van Tuyl, and Charles King. That such proceedings were had in said last-mentioned cause, that the cause was brought to a final hearing, and a decree entered on the 24th day of November, A. D. 1884, in which it was decreed that the mortgages given by the said defendants Alva Worden and John S. Worden to the said defendants Mary A. Andrews, Henry M. Curtis, Henry Van Tuyl, and Charles King, were good and valid liens upon the lands mentioned therein, and that the several conveyances to Harrison H. Ballard were fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the said Alva Worden and John S. Worden. Thereupon the said defendant Harrison H. Ballard prayed an appeal to the supreme court of the United States to reverse the said decree, as far as it related to him. That the said appeal was allowed, and the amount of the appeal-bond was fixed at the sum of $8,500. That the said bond was duly executed and approved by one of the judges of the said circuit court, and filed in the office of the clerk of said circuit court. That on the 8th day of October, 1885, the clerk of the said circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan transmitted the transcript of the record in the case of Anson Searls v. Harrison H. Ballard et al. to the clerk of the supreme court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Gary Realty Co. v. Swinney
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1924
    ...de Nemours & Co. v. Richmond Guano Co. (C. C. A.) 297 F. 580; Morgan v. Iron Co., 243 F. 149, 156 C. C. A. 15; Ballard v. Searls, 130 U. S. 50, 9 S. Ct. 418, 32 L. Ed. 846; German Trust v. Plotke, 274 Pa. 483, 118 A. 508; Sherwood v. Greater Mammoth Vein Co., 194 Iowa, 439, 189 N. W. I. The......
  • Boynton v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 28, 1907
    ...F. 40. And no technicalities will be permitted to prevent relief in the main suit upon the reversal of the decree in the collateral suit. 130 U.S. 50; 45 F. 741; U.S. 240. 3. A further ground for bill of review, as shown by the proof, was the discovery, after the rendition of the decree, th......
  • Jensen v. New York Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 9, 1931
    ...to the trial court for amendment of pleadings or for further evidence." Similar procedure was followed in Ballard v. Searls, 130 U. S. 50, 56, 9 S. Ct. 418, 32 L. Ed. 846; Finefrock v. Kenova, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 627; also Id., 37 F.(2d) 310 (C. C. A. 4); St. Louis, etc., Co. v. ......
  • Reed v. Allen
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1932
    ...of review and motions for a new trial and all the technical apparatus familiar to students of procedure. Cf. Ballard v. Searls, 130 U. S. 50, 55, 9 S. Ct. 418, 32 L. Ed. 846; Walz v. Agricultural Ins. Co., (D. C.) 282 F. 646. On the other hand, there are barriers to remedies so summary wher......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT