Briggs v. Walker, No. 260

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGRAY
Citation19 S.Ct. 1,43 L.Ed. 243,171 U.S. 466
PartiesBRIGGS v. WALKER et al
Docket NumberNo. 260
Decision Date17 October 1898

171 U.S. 466
19 S.Ct. 1
43 L.Ed. 243
BRIGGS

v.

WALKER et al.

No. 260.
October 17, 1898.

Page 467

The controversy in this case was between the executor and two creditors of Charles M. Briggs, and arose as follows:

On April 18, 1862, during the war of the Rebellinon, Charles S. Morehead, of Kentucky, executed and delivered to his nephew, Charles M. Briggs, a bill of sale of cotton in Mississippi, in these terms:

'For and in consideration of money loaned and advanced heretofore by C. M. Briggs, and further valuable consideration by way of suretyship for me by said Briggs, I hereby sell and transfer to said C. M. Briggs all the cotton on my two plantations in Mississippi, near Eggspoint and Greenville. Said cotton so sold embraces all I have, baled and unbaled, gathered and ungathered. This is intended to cover all cotton that I have now or may have this year on said two plantations, supposed to be about 2,000 bales.'

At the same time Briggs executed and delivered to Samuel J. Walker, Morehead's sonin-law, a writing in these terms:

'In consideration of the sale and transfer this day made to me by C. S. Morehead of all the cotton on his two plantations near Eggspoint, in the state of Mississippi, as specified in said sale and transfer in writing, I hereby assume and agree to pay to Samuel J. Walker the sum of forty thousand dollars, due and owing to said Walker by said C. S. Morehead, upon condition, however, that I realize sufficient amount from any cotton on or from said plantations or proceeds of same, together with about twenty-five thousand dollars due me from said C. S. Morehead for moneys advanced and liability for him as surety; also about ten thousand dollars, more or less, being a claim of A. S. Shotwell as he may hereafter establish against said C. S. Morehead; but, in case I should not realize sufficient to pay all of said claims or amounts above named in full, then I am to pay or divide the amount that may be realized from said cotton, proportionately or pro rata according to the respective amounts named, to the parties above named, first,

Page 468

however, paying and refunding any moneys paid by the respective parties for or on account of expenses pertaining to same; and, in case more should be realized than sufficient to pay said amounts, with interest thereon to the time of realization and payment, then any surplus to be divided, one-half to said Shotwell and C. M. Briggs jointly for any services, and the remaining one-half to said Samuel J. Walker; but no other consideration to be paid to said Shotwell and Briggs for their service.'

Briggs at once took steps to get possession of the cotton, but was prevented by the Federal forces and the Confederate forces in the vicinity. This cotton, amounting to 450 bales, was finally seized, together with other cotton, by Capt. G. L. Fort, assistant quartermaster general in the United States army, in behalf of the United States, and was by him sold, and the proceeds paid into the treasury of the United States. Briggs died in 1875, after repeated and unsuccessful efforts, through his attorneys, to obtain the proceeds of the cotton in question; and his executor continued the efforts, and, through the same attorneys, procured the passage of the act of congress of June 4, 1888, c. 348, copied in the margin.1

Page 469

Under the provisions of that act, Briggs' executor brought suit in the court of claims, and therein recovered the sum of $88,000. See Briggs v. U. S., 25 Ct. Cl. 126; 143 U. S. 346, 12 Sup. Ct. 391; 27 Ct. Cl. 564. Half of that sum was paid to the attorneys, pursuant to a contract between them and Briggs; and the rest, being the sum of $44,000, came to the hands of the executor.

Thereupon the executor, in a suit previously

To these petitions the executor of Briggs filed supplemental answers, in which, among other things, he set up the act of congress of June, 4, 1888, and the proceedings in the court of claims; and alleged that 'in pursuance to the said act this defendant, through his said counsel, instituted an action against the United States in the court of claims to recover the proceeds of sale of the cotton aforesaid, and in and by said action it was finally determined and adjudged that the said

Page 470

testator was loyal to the United States, and that the assignment made by said Morehead to defendant's testator was bona fide, and founded on a valuable consideration; but this defendant was, by the act aforesaid, as well as the final judgment of the court of claims, limited in his recovery to such sum as would satisfy the debts and claims of his testator, to secure which the said assignment was given; and this defendant says that by the final judgment of said court of claims he only received and recovered from the United States such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Nutt v. Forsythe
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 28, 1904
    ...24 L.Ed. 1065; Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529; Ib., 35 L. ed., 550; Blagge v. Balch, 162 U.S. 439; Ib., 40 L.Ed. 1032; Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466; Ib., 43 L.Ed. 243; Price v. Forrest, 173 U.S. 410; Ib., 43 L.Ed. 749; Campbell, Assignee, v. United States (decided by the court of claims ......
  • McMahan v. Greenwood, No. 14-01-00431-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 29, 2003
    ...nothing in the context to control its meaning, its primary and ordinary meaning is "executors and administrators." See Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466, 471, 19 S.Ct. 1, 43 L.Ed. 243 (1898); see also Averbuck v. Stoller, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 791, 344 N.E.2d 198, 199 (1976) ("The words `legal repres......
  • Cocklin v. Watkins (In re Cocklin's Estate), No. 46550.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 9, 1945
    ...of resisting unfounded claims, and to see to it that there is no improper diversion of funds or property in his hands. Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466, 19 S.Ct. 1, 43 L.Ed. 243. He represents all parties and all interests in the estate. Leighton v. Leighton, 193 Iowa 1299, 188 N.W. 922. For ......
  • In re Estate of Wilson, No. 79-40.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 29, 1980
    ...that an executor de jure was "a," and not "the exclusive," legal representative of the decedent, it did go on to quote Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466, 471, 19 S.Ct. 1, 3, 43 L.Ed. 243 (1898), to the effect The primary and ordinary meaning of the words `representatives', or `legal representa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 cases
  • Nutt v. Forsythe
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 28, 1904
    ...24 L.Ed. 1065; Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529; Ib., 35 L. ed., 550; Blagge v. Balch, 162 U.S. 439; Ib., 40 L.Ed. 1032; Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466; Ib., 43 L.Ed. 243; Price v. Forrest, 173 U.S. 410; Ib., 43 L.Ed. 749; Campbell, Assignee, v. United States (decided by the court of claims ......
  • McMahan v. Greenwood, No. 14-01-00431-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 29, 2003
    ...nothing in the context to control its meaning, its primary and ordinary meaning is "executors and administrators." See Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466, 471, 19 S.Ct. 1, 43 L.Ed. 243 (1898); see also Averbuck v. Stoller, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 791, 344 N.E.2d 198, 199 (1976) ("The words `legal repres......
  • Cocklin v. Watkins (In re Cocklin's Estate), No. 46550.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 9, 1945
    ...of resisting unfounded claims, and to see to it that there is no improper diversion of funds or property in his hands. Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466, 19 S.Ct. 1, 43 L.Ed. 243. He represents all parties and all interests in the estate. Leighton v. Leighton, 193 Iowa 1299, 188 N.W. 922. For ......
  • In re Estate of Wilson, No. 79-40.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 29, 1980
    ...that an executor de jure was "a," and not "the exclusive," legal representative of the decedent, it did go on to quote Briggs v. Walker, 171 U.S. 466, 471, 19 S.Ct. 1, 3, 43 L.Ed. 243 (1898), to the effect The primary and ordinary meaning of the words `representatives', or `legal representa......
  • 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