Chapman v. Barney

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation9 S.Ct. 426,129 U.S. 677,32 L.Ed. 800
Decision Date05 March 1889

R. T. McNeal, for plaintiff in error.


In its original form, this was an action of assumpsit, brought in the court below by the United States Express Company, alleged to have been organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, and a citizen of that state, against Heman B. Chapman, a citizen of Illinois, to recover the sum of $14,000 in money, alleged to have been intrusted to him for delivery to a certain company at La Salle, Ill., and converted by him to his own use. At the same term of the court in which the declaration was filed, Chapman answered, setting up two defenses, viz.: (1) Non assumpsit; and (2) nul tiel corporation. On the 8th of August, 1879, upon statutory affidavit filed on behalf of the company, a writ of attachment was issued, under which writ the marshal of the district levied upon certain personal property and effects of the plaintiff in error. At the succeeding term of the court, upon motions made by the company for that purpose, leave was given it to file an amended declaration, and to change its action from assumpsit to trover; and the plaintiff in error was ruled to plead to the amended declaration within 10 days after service of a copy thereof upon his attorneys. In conformity with such order, at the December term, 1879, of the court, the plaintiff amended the declaration so as to make it, in lieu of the original, read as follows: 'Ashbel H. Barney, president of the United States Express Company, a joint-stock company organized under and by virtue of a law of the state of New York, and which said company is authorized by the laws of the state of New York to maintain and bring suits, in the name of its president, for or on account of any right of action accruing to said company, and a citizen of the state of New York, the plaintiff in this suit, by E. F. Bull and James W. Duncan, its attorneys, complains of Heman B. Chapman, a citizen of the state of Illinois,' etc. After the leave to amend the declaration was given, but before the amended declaration was filed, the plaintiff in error was convicted of perjury in the circuit court of La Salle county, Ill., and sentenced to imprisonment in the Joliet penitentiary for the term of seven years, under which sentence he was, on January 2, 1880, removed to said penitentiary, and there imprisoned until October, 1884. Without any proof of service of a copy of the amendment, of any order for the default of the plaintiff in error for want of plea to the amended declaration, and without any plea thereto having been filed by him, the case was called for trial, and the record shows the following proceedings to have been had: 'Said cause having been called for trial, plaintiff appeared, and defendant and his attorney failing to appear, thereupon, upon issue joined, comes a jury, [naming them,] who were sworn well and truly to try said issue, and who, after hearing the evidence, returned the following verdict: 'We, the jury find the issue for the plaintiff, and assess his damages at fourteen thousand dollars;" and then follows judgment, on March 27, 1880, in usual form, on the verdict, for $14,000, and costs. On the 8th of October, 1885, plaintiff in error filed in the court below his bond for the prosecution of a writ of error to reverse said judgment, and the same was duly approved by the circuit judge. The mittimus under the sentence above referred to, the certificate of the warden of the penitentiary, and the affidavit of plaintiff in error were all filed in the case and made part of the record, and they show that plaintiff in error was imprisoned in the Joliet penitentiary from January 2, 1880, to October 4, 1884; and another affidavit of the plaintiff in error, also filed in the case and made part of the record, shows that on his discharge from the penitentiary, October, 1884, he was at once arrested on a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued upon the judgment above mentioned, and from that time until the issue of the writ he had been imprisoned in the county jail of Cook county, Ill., upon such capias. His case is thus brought within the provisions of section 1008, Rev. St., which provides that, in case a party entitled to a writ of error is imprisoned, he may prosecute such writ within two years after judgment, exclusive of the term of such imprisonment.

The assignments of error relied upon are three in number, and are substantially as follows: (1) The court erred in permitting a new sole plaintiff to be substituted for, and in the place of, the sole original plaintiff. (2) The court erred in submitting to the jury the cause as it stood after the amendments aforesaid, as upon issue joined between said parties, in entering the verdict of the jury in said cause, in rendering judgment thereon in favor of the defendant in error, when there was no issue joined between said parties. (3) The court erred in proceeding to trial and entering a verdict and rendering judgment against plaintiff in error when he had no notice of the order giving leave to amend, or of such amendment, and had had no time or opportunity to plead to the amended declaration, nor any day in court to answer to or defend against the suit of the new plaintiff.

We do not think the first assignment of error well taken. Amendments are discretionary with the court, below, and not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
250 cases
  • Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M Street LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 8 Abril 2003
    ...S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 20 S.Ct. 690, 44 L.Ed. 842 (1900) (limited-partnership associations); Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 9 S.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800 (1889) (joint-stock The Court has acknowledged that its bright-line rule separating corporations from all other le......
  • Johnson v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 6 Julio 1909
    ...... the Johnson had no capacity to sue, and they cite in support. of this contention Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677,. 682, 9 Sup.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800, and Weir v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 126 Mo.App. 471, 103. S.W. 583; but in ......
  • Navarro Savings Association v. Lee, 79-465
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 19 Mayo 1980
    ......Bouligny, Inc. , 382 U.S. 145, 86 S.Ct. 272, 15 L.Ed.2d 217 (1965) (labor union); Chapman v. Barney , 129 U.S. 677, 9 S.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800 (1889) (joint stock company). .           Navarro contends that Fidelity's trust form ......
  • People of Puerto Rico v. Russell Co Sucesores En 10 8212 13, 1933, 492
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Marzo 1933
    ......But status as a unit for purposes of suit alone, as in the case of a joint-stock company, see Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 682, 9 S.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800; Levering & Garrigues v. Morrin (C.C.A.) 61 F.(2d) 115, 117, or a limited partnership, not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Recent Developments In Diversity Jurisdiction For LLCs And Other Unincorporated Forms
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 3 Diciembre 2015
    ...facilities conferred by it, ... ."); see also Steamship Company v. Tugman, 106 US 118, 120-21 (1882). 45 See, e.g., Chapman v. Barney, SCt, 129 US 677, 9 SCt 426, 32 L.Ed. 800 46 See, e.g., Alphonse v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C., CA- 5, No. 14-31320 No. 14-31320 Summary Calendar, 2015 U.S. A......

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