Burgess v. Doble

• Decision Date: 14 May 1889
• Citation: 21 N.E. 438,149 Mass. 256
• Parties: BURGESS v. DOBLE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

149 Mass. 256

21 N.E. 438

BURGESS v. DOBLE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 14, 1889

COUNSEL

H.H. Mather and H.H. Smith, for plaintiff.

A.A Ranney, for defendants.

OPINION

FIELD J.

It is impossible to ascertain from the plaintiff's declaration the precise nature of the suit in equity which she brought in the circuit court of the United States.The declaration refers to the record of the case in the circuit court, but a copy is not annexed, and we do not know what that record is.The declaration alleges, however, that it was a suit in equity to recover land; that on April 21, 1882, she obtained a decree in her favor against Peter Groffam and Herbert F Doble, one of the defendants in the present suit; that they were on July 3, 1882, ordered to execute a deed of the land to her in a form which had been approved by a master; that they appealed from the decree to the supreme court of the United States, and upon appeal executed, with sureties, the bond on which the present suit is brought, and a copy of which is annexed to the declaration; that the appeal was entered and heard by the supreme court, and that court affirmed the decree of the circuit court with costs; that in pursuance of the mandate of the supreme courtthe circuit court on June 14, 1886, entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, "and the proceedings terminated;" "that on September 2, 1886, the said costs were paid by the defendants; and on May 28, 1886, a deed was executed and delivered by said Groffam and Doble to the plaintiff, as ordered by said court; and that on May 3 1886, the plaintiff too possession of her premises.The damage claimed are the value of the "rents and profits and use and occupation from April 20, 1882, to March 3 1886,""and also a further sum for the use of a certain mineral spring situated upon said premises, of the use and benefit of which she was wrongfully deprived," and from which she could have derived great profit.The bond is signed by Doble as principal, and by the two other defendants in the present suit as sureties, and recites that a decree has been rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts in favor of the plaintiff against Groffam and Doble, from which they have appealed; and the condition of the bond is "that, if the said Peter Groffam and Herbert F. Doble shall prosecute their said appeal to effect, and answer all...