Charles Micken, Appellant v. Franklin Perin

Decision Date01 December 1857
Citation15 L.Ed. 857,20 How. 133,61 U.S. 133
PartiesCHARLES McMICKEN, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN PERIN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

It was before this court at a preceding term, and is reported in 18th Howard, 508.

When the mandate of this court went down, the money therein mentioned was tendered to McMicken, who refused to accept it; whereupon, an order was obtained to attach him for contempt, in refusing to make the conveyance required by the decree. Whilst in custody of the marshal, he executed the conveyance, and at the same time took an appeal from the order to attach.

Mr. Taylor moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion was opposed by Mr. Gillet.

Mr. Taylor referred to the cases of Watson v. Thomas, Littell's Select Cases, (6 Lit.,) 248; Carr v. Hoxie, 13 Pet., 462; and Lovelace v. Taylor, 6 Rob. R., 93.

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court for the eastern district of Louisiana.

The defendant, Perin, in the year 1848, being desirous of purchasing the interests the Fletchers had in a plantation, with the improvements thereon, situated in the parish of East Baton Rouge, in the State of Louisiana, applied to Charles McMicken, a relation of his, living in Cincinnati, Ohio, to loan him five thousand dollars for the purchase, which he agreed to do; and, in order to secure McMicken, it was agreed that he should take the title in his own name in trust, on condition that Perin should pay him the money advanced. And it appears that, under various pretences, McMicken sought to hold the plantation as his property.

A bill was filed by Perin for a specific execution of the contract, by a conveyance to him on the payment of the five thousand dollars borrowed.

And after various proceedings were had and testimony examined, the court decreed that Perin, within six months, shall pay McMicken the sum of $7,266.30, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent., from the date until paid; and, on the payment thereof, that McMicken shall convey to Perin the undivided three-fourths part of the plantation aforesaid, in the parish of East Baton Rouge. Subsequently, the time for the payment of the money was extended three months. But this order was afterwards annulled, and an appeal to the Supreme Court from the decree was granted.

And afterwards, at the January term, 1857, on filing the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Database America v. Bellsouth Advertising & Pub.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 15, 1993
  • Ex parte Whitmore
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1894
    ... ... therefrom in the third district court, Hon. Charles S. Zane, ... judge. The following further facts are stated ... The appeal was from an order punishing the appellant ... for contempt [9 Utah 453] in disobeying an ... 387, 20 Wall ... 387, 22 L.Ed. 354; McMicken v. Perin , 61 ... U.S. 133, 20 HOW 133, 15 L.Ed. 857; Clark v ... ...
  • Goins v. Goins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • August 15, 1983
    ...and the corrected memorandum judgment, there is no mention of the length of the probationary period.2 See and compare: McMicken v. Perin, 61 U.S. 20 How. 133, 15 L.Ed. 857; State v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 161 La. 293, 108 So. 487; City of Gretna v. Rossner, 154 La. 117, 97 So.......
  • Network Systems Corp. v. Masstor Systems Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • July 12, 1984
  • 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