Campbell v. Pratt

• Decision Date: 16 March 1820
• Citation: 18 U.S. 429,5 Wheat. 429,5 L.Ed. 126
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. PRATT et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

18 U.S. 429

5 L.Ed. 126

5 Wheat. 429

CAMPBELL v. PRATT et al.

March 16, 1820

March 13th.

THIS cause was argued by Mr. Key, for the appellant, and by Mr. Jones, for the respondents.

March 16th.

Mr. Justice JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principal question in this case is, whether the Circuit Court has executed the decrees formerly pronounced between these parties,^a according to their true intent and meaning. Some obscurity has been thrown over the meaning of those decrees, from an obvious error in copying them into the minutes. The primary object of this Court was, to give to Law the benefit of a foreclosure in all the lots included in the mortgage from Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf, in whose right, Pratt, Francis and Company founded their claim. But being called upon by the equity of intervening interests, (in creating which Law himself had had some agency,) they decreed a distribution of the whole amount due to Law, between that class of lots, still held by the mortgagor, and that which had passed into the hands

^a S. C. 9 Cranch, 500 of the present appellants. This class was again subject to another discrimination, inasmuch as thirteen of the thirty-two purchased by the appellant, were subject to a second mortgage, executed by Morris, Nicholson, and Greenleaf, to one Duncanson, and the equitable interest in which was adjudged to the assignee of Greenleaf. The sum which thirty-two lots were decreed to contribute to the payment of Law, was to be determined by the ratio which these lots bore to the whole of the mortgaged premises.

It is now contended, that another distribution of the sum thus charged, is to be made between the lots thus mortgaged to Duncanson, and the remaining lots of this class. And it is ascertained, that the consequence will be, putting a considerable sum in the pocket of this appellant, to the prejudice of Duncanson's mortgage, as the sale of those thirteen lots falls considerably short of satisfying the sum decreed on that mortgage. That is, that these thirteen lots shall be charged rateably with the sum charged upon the whole class, so as to contribute to relieve the remaining lots, and by thus contributing to the satisfaction of Law's mortgage, leave the larger sum from the sale of the remaining lots to be paid over to this appellant. This, it is contended, is both conformable to the decree, and to general principles.

If conformable to the decree, it is in vain to refer to general principles. But, we think, the purport of the decree is obviously otherwise. Campbell, claiming as...