Barker v. Craig

Decision Date30 April 1888
PartiesBARKER et al. v. CRAIG
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Geo. E. Pritchett, for appellants.

W. J. Connell, for appellee.

MILLER, J.

The appellants here, Henry O. Jones and John Jort, brought their bill in chancery against Walter Craig, the defendant, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska. The object of the bill was to remove a cloud upon the title to certain lands. The defendant had brought an action of ejectment to recover their possession, and, having a prima facie title of record upon which he could recover, this bill was filed for the purpose of setting up an equitable defense. Thereupon a temporary injunction was allowed restraining Craig from prosecuting his action of ejectment until the chancery suit was decided. The allegation of the bill was that a deed under which the plaintiff in the ejectment suit asserted title was executed as a mortgage, with a written contract of defeasance when the money loaned should be repaid. To this bill a demurrer was filed, upon which the court made an order in the following language: 'If the plaintiff will amend bill and bring into court proper amount of money to redeem and pay taxes, all of same to bear interest from time money was due, and interest on taxes from date of payment, at present rate of interest, then perpetual injunction can be allowed. Costs of both suits to abide further order.' Afterwards the plaintiff did file an amended bill, to which likewise there was a general demurrer. Upon the hearing of that demurrer the court made the following order: 'Henry O. Jones et al. vs. Walter Craig. 193-H. This cause coming on to be heard upon the demurrer of the defendant to the amended bill of complaint filed herein, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is ordered that if within fifteen days the plaintiff bring into court the amount of the note and mortgage set forth in the bill of complaint, with interest thereon from the time the note became due, with interest thereon at ten per cent. per annum until November 1, 1879, and from November 1, 1879, to date of this No, sir. Q. 2. Did you ever know or together with all taxes paid by defendant upon the land described in said Sierra Nevada mountains? A. A great per annum, then the defendant be restrained from the further prosecution of the cause in ejectment set forth in said bill of complaint, and entitled Walter Craig v. Henry O. Jones; but, if the going up to the mountains. Q. 3. Did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Republic Natural Gas Co v. State of Oklahoma
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1948
    ...precluded it from being final. Cf. Paducah v. East Tennessee Tel.Co., 229 U.S. 476, 33 S.Ct. 816, 57 L.Ed. 1286; Jones' Adm'r v. Craig, 127 U.S. 213, 8 S.Ct. 1175, 32 L.Ed. 147; Note, 48 Harv.L.Rev. 302, 305—306. Since the judgment now appealed from lacks the necessary finality, we cannot c......
  • United States v. Associated Air Transport, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 6, 1958
    ...v. Callander, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 410 and cases cited therein. 6 See e. g., Stratton v. Dewey, 5 Cir., 79 F. 32; Jones' Adm'r v. Craig, 127 U.S. 213, 8 S.Ct. 1175, 32 L.Ed. 147; City of Paducah, Ky., v. East Tenn. Tel. Co., 229 U.S. 476, 33 S.Ct. 816, 57 L.Ed. 1286; Hengesbach v. Hengesbach, 7......
  • Zucker v. Maxicare Health Plans Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 26, 1994
    ...court must still take action; the district court has more to do than simply execute the Judgment. See Jones's Adm'r v. Craig, 127 U.S. 213, 8 S.Ct. 1175, 32 L.Ed. 147 (1888) (dismissing an appeal from a conditional judgment for lack of finality because the record failed to show that the con......
  • Brownson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 29, 1929
    ...alternative, or anticipatory nisi. Such orders are generally held not appealable. 13 C. J. § 156, pp. 99, 100; Jones' Adm'r v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213, 8 S. Ct. 1175, 32 L. Ed. 147; City of Paducah v. East Tenn., etc., Co., 229 U. S. 476, 33 S. Ct. 816, 57 L. Ed. 1286. And this is especially t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • An Analysis of Remittitur's Effects on the Timing to File a Notice of Appeal.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 53 No. 3, June 2020
    • June 22, 2020
    ...v. E. Tenn. Tel. Co., 229 U.S. 476, 480 (1913) (dismissing premature appeal and requiring final order to appeal), with Barker v. Craig, 127 U.S. 213, 216 (1888) (remanding case to circuit court due to lack of final order to (56.) See 12 Moore et al., supra note 7, [section][section] 59.52-.......

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