Coyle v. Davis
| Decision Date | 21 December 1885 |
| Citation | 6 S.Ct. 314,116 U.S. 108,29 L.Ed. 583 |
| Parties | COYLE v. DAVIS and others. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
B. F. Butler and O. D. Barrett, for appellant, John F. Coyle.
W. D. Davidge and H. E. Davis, for appellees, Henry S. Davis and others.
This is an appeal from a decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, made in general term, July 6, 1880, dismissing the bill of complaint in a suit in equity brought by John F. Coyle against Henry S. Davis, William E. Spalding, and William W. Rapley. The bill was filed May 24, 1869, to redeem a parcel of land in the city of Washington alleged to be covered by a mortgage held by the defendant Davis. The substantial averments of the bill are that Coyle, Spalding, and Rapley, in April, 1863, purchased the land, as tenants in common, and it was, by their mutual consent, deeded to Rapley; that Coyle's share was incumbered by a deed of trust executed as security for a loan made to Coyle by one Riggs; that, in order to pay Riggs, Coyle, in June, 1866, applied to Davis for a loan of $6,000; that Davis had, for a long time, made many professions of warm friendship for Coyle, and of willingness and desire to serve him, and had acquired Coyle's full confidence, and, upon such application, offered to make to Coyle such a loan as would both pay Riggs and settle up all Coyle's accounts with Spalding and Rapley, in respect of the land, and, as security for the loan, asked a mortgage on Coyle's undivided one-third of the land, which would thus be free from all incumbrance and indebtedness, and suggested that a statement of Coyle's accounts with Spalding and Rapley be furnished to him, (Davis;) that, on or about June 12, 1866, Davis was furnished with a written instrument signed by Spalding and Rapley, fully setting forth Coyle's account in respect of the land; that, thereupon, Davis well knowing that one-third interest in the land was worth about $30,000, and would increase in value, urged Coyle to take a loan from him of about $17,000, in order to settle his account with Spalding and Rapley, as well as pay his debt to Riggs, and to give him (Davis) a mortgage on Coyle's interest, as security; that, as inducement to this course, Davis represented that the arrangement proposed by him would be freer from complication than any other, and would give him an independent security for the loan, and that his business, as well as his desire to serve Coyle, would afford him opportunity to effect, for the benefit of Coyle, a highly advantageous sale of said interest in the premises, from the proceeds of which he could retain the balance due on his loan, and pay over the residue to Coyle, and that this arrangement would tend to the benefit of both parties; that Coyle acceded to the proposition, and Davis loaned to Coyle $17,659.46, by advancing $6,000 to pay the debt to Riggs, and assuming the payment, to be made as it should fall due, of the unpaid balance on Coyle's one-third interest, viz., $11,659.46; that, as security for the loan, Davis took a mortgage on Coyle's undivided one-third of the land, in the manner following, to-wit: Rapley and Coyle, on or about July 6, 1866, conveyed to Davis Coyle's undivided one-third interest in the land, by a deed absolute in form, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kawauchi v. Tabata
...Wash. 261, 118 P. 21, 23, L.R.A.1916B, 4. Cf., Wallace v. Johnstone, 129 U.S. 58, 64, 9 S.Ct. 243, 32 L.Ed. 619; Coyle v. Davis, 116 U.S. 108, 112, 6 S.Ct. 314, 29 L.Ed. 583; Blue River Sawmills, Ltd. v. Gates, 225 Or. 439, 358 P.2d 239, 243; Elling v. Fine, 53 Mont. 481, 164 P. 891; Parks ......
-
Stuart v. Hauser
... ... Harper, 3 J. J. Marsh. 354, 20 Am. Dec. 145; Jones on ... Mortgages, sec. 329; Russell v. Southard, supra; Peugh v ... Davis, 96 U.S. 332; Wright v. Mahaffey, 76 Iowa ... 96, 40 N.W. 112; Ennor v. Thompson, 46 Ill. 214.) ... "Evidence of the continuance of the debt, ... Cake v. Schull, 45 N. J. Eq. 208, 16 A. 434; ... Cadman v. Peter, 118 U.S. 80, 6 S.Ct. 957; Coyle ... v. Davis, 6 S.Ct. 108, 116 U.S. 583; Appeal of Fisher, ... 132 Pa. 488, 19 A. 276; 3 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, ... sec. 1196; Tilden ... ...
-
Isaacks v. State, 49542
... ... The purpose of the rule being to deter overreaching conduct by officers prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969) ... The officers in this case did what they were required to do ... ...
-
American Bell Tel. Co. v. National Mfg. Co.
... ... ' Howland v. Blake, 97 ... U.S. 624-626, 24 L.Ed. 1027; Insurance Co. v ... Nelson, 103 U.S. 544, 26 L.Ed. 436; Coyle v ... Davis, 116 U.S. 108, 6 Sup.Ct. 314, 29 L.Ed. 583; ... Cadman v. Peter, 118 U.S. 73, 6 Sup.Ct. 957, 30 ... L.Ed. 78; Moore v. Crawford, ... ...