Borgmeyer v. Idler
Decision Date | 28 October 1895 |
Docket Number | No. 582,582 |
Citation | 159 U.S. 408,16 S.Ct. 34,40 L.Ed. 199 |
Parties | BORGMEYER v. IDLER et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Action by Charles L. Borgmeyer, administrator of the estate of Alexander Chataing, deceased, against William Idler and John W. Hazeltine, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Jacob Idler, deceased. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the circuit court of appeals (13 C. C. A. 198, 65 Fed. 910), and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.
Borgmeyer, administrator of the estate of Alexander Chataing, deceased, under letters granted September 14, 1892, brought an action September 15, 1892, against William Idler and John W. Hazeltine, administrators de bonis non of the estate of Jacob Idler, deceased, in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, averring that he was a citizen of the state of New Jersey, and that the defendants were citizens of the state of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff's statement of claim or declaration, filed September 22d, alleged the recovery by Jacob Idler, after prolonged litigation, of a judgment against the republic of Venezuela in September, 1832, and that throughout the litigation Chataing was Idler's attorney and counsel, and that he had advanced Idler the sum of 4,400 pesos. The statement then continued thus: And plaintiff claimed to recover a commission of 10 per cent. under the paper of September 25, 1832, and a balance due on the advance of 4,400 pesos.
Defendants filed an affidavit of defense, setting up, as to the 10 per cent. commission, that the judgment was annulled in 1839 by the highest court of Venezuela, and no payment had ever been made thereon; that Chataing died August 30, 1836, and Idler employed other agents to endeavor to obtain payment of the claim, and that after Idler's death, May 26, 1856, William Idler continued these efforts, and employed other agents and counsel; that an award was made in favor of Idler and his associates in 1868 by a mixed commission created under a treaty of 1866, and that in 1871 there was paid by the department of state of the United States, under this award, $17,696.98, and in 1876 the further sum of $20,225.12; that by a treaty of June 4, 1889, all the awards were reopened, and a mixed commission appointed under that treaty, which heard and determined, in the city of Washington in 1890, the validity of the claim of Idler and his associates de novo; that no claim was made before this commission for or on account of any interest in this award by Chataing or his estate; that the commission reopened the award made under the treaty of 1866, and heard and decided as to the validity of the claim, reduced the award, and made a division between all whom the court decided had interests therein; that from 1833 to 1891 no claim or demand of any nature was made by Chataing in his lifetime, or after his death, against Idler in his lifetime of his associates, nor was any claim or demand of any nature or kind against the estate of Idler or against his associates made by the estate of Chataing or any person for his estate or heirs, for or on account of the claims in this suit, until 1891, a period of 58 years; and defendants set up the bar of the statute of limitations, payment, etc.
At the trial the circuit court directed a verdict for plaintiff, reserving all the questions of law, and subsequently entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on the verdict. Defendants took the case on error to the circuit court of appeals for the Third circuit, which reversed the judgment of the circuit court, and entered judgment for the defendants, notwithstanding the verdict, on the points of law reserved at the trial. The court of appeals held as to the claim for commission that the record disclosed the fact that Idler's judgment in Venezuela had been annulled by the courts of that country, and that nothing had been paid by Venezuela on the footing of that judgment, and the court observed:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zikos v. Oregon R. Nav. Co.
... ... 503, 32 L.Ed. 908); ... Cook County v. Calumet, etc., Canal Company, 138 ... U.S. 635, 653 (11 Sup.Ct. 435, 34 L.Ed. 1110); ... Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U.S. 408 (16 Sup.Ct. 34, ... 40 L.Ed. 199); Blackburn v. Portland Mining ... Company, 175 U.S. 571 (20 Sup.Ct. 222, 44 L.Ed. 276); ... ...
-
Boehringer v. Yuma County
... ... v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210, 32 L.Ed. 908, 9 ... S.Ct. 503. See, also, Grand Gulf etc. Co. v ... Marshall, 12 How. 165, 13 L.Ed. 938; ... Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U.S. 415, 40 L.Ed ... 199, 16 S.Ct. 34; Louisville & Nashville R. v ... Louisville, 166 U.S. 709, 41 L.Ed. 1173, 17 S.Ct ... 725; ... ...
-
Louis Loeb v. Trustees of Columbia Township
...states.' Colorado C. Consol. Min. Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 37 L. ed. 1030, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408, 414, 40 L. ed. 199, 201, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691, 693, 41 L. ed. 601, 602, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. When the question is whether a judgme......
-
Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co
...as to require the circuit court to pass on the question of validity or construction in disposing of the right asserted. Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408, 16 Sup. Ct. 34. The general doctrine has been frequently announced in cases involving the jurisdiction of this court under the twenty-fi......