Cragin v. Lovell, Ex
| Decision Date | 12 November 1883 |
| Parties | CRAGIN v. LOVELL, EX'r, etc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
These two cases have been argued together. Eliza A. Quitman, the defendant in error and appellee, having died since the judgment below, William S. Lovell, her executor, has appeared in her stead. In the action at law, she filed a petition against George D. Cragin, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Louisiana, alleging that she was a citizen of New York and he was a citizen of Louisiana; that on the thirty-first of January, 1878, she sold a plantation to Orlando P. Fisk for the price of $22,500, of which the sum of $4,500 was paid in cash, and for the rest of which nine notes of Fisk were given for $2,000 each, payable in successive years, and secured by a mortgage of the estate; that Cragin had paid the first three of the notes, and the petitioner, by foreclosure and sale of the estate under the mortgage, had obtained the sum of $10,447.05, to be credited on the remaining notes under date of May 1, 1874; and further alleging as follows:
'Now your petitioner represents that George D. Cragin is and was the real owner of said property, and liable to your petitioner, for the following reasons, viz.:
'That subsequently to the said purchase of property by said Fisk, by a certain proceeding filed in this honorable court, the said Cragin did claim the entire ownership of the said property, and did claim that the purchase made in the name of the said Fisk was illegally entered in his own name by said Fisk, who was acting merely as the agent of said Cragin, and that the amount of the purchase price of said property paid in cash, as well as the first and second notes aforesaid, were made by said Fisk with the money of said Cragin, and that he, said Cragin, was liable for and ready to pay for said property; that thereafter in due course of law, and after proper proceedings, the said Cragin was adjudged by this honorable court, by final decree, to be the owner of said property, and the matters and things in said petition contained were found to be true and correct.
'That pending said proceedings the said George D. Cragin was and in said case appointed the receiver of the said plantation, so sole by your petitioner as aforesaid, and that, acting as such receiver, and subsequently as such owner of said plantation, he did remove therefrom all the movable property thereon, and which existed thereon at the date of the sale by your petitioner to said Fisk, of a value exceeding $1,000, and did lay waste and dilapidate the said property, to benefit his adjoining plantation, and to the detriment of your petitioner's rights.
'Petitioner further avers, that by reason of the causes aforesaid the said George D. Cragin is liable and indebted unto your petitioner in the full amount of said notes, less the credit due as aforesaid, for which amicable demand has been made without avail.'
The record shows that Cragin was served with process in Louisiana, and, not appearing, was defaulted, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum claimed, (which was shown by computation and agreement of counsel to be $6,888.40,) and the defendant sued out a writ of error, which is the first of the cases before us.
The other case is an appeal from a decree of the same court, dismissing upon demurrer a bill in equity, filed by Quitman against Cragin to annul and avoid the judgment aforesaid and to restrain the issue of execution thereon. The bill set forth the proceedings in the suit at law; and its only other material allegations were, that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of that suit, because both parties were citizens of New York; and that Quitman, knowing that fact, falsely and fraudulently alleged Cragin to be a citizen of Louisiana, and illegally and unjustly obtained judgment by default against him.
Mr. J. D. Rouse and Mr. William Grant, for Cragin.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 196-197 intentionally omitted] Mr. Joseph P. Hornor, and Mr. W. S. Benedict for Lovell.
[Argument of Counsel from page 197 intentionally omitted] It is quite clear that the bill in equity was rightly dismissed, because it contains no allegation that Cragin did not know, before the judgment against him in the suit at law, that the plaintiff in that suit alleged that he was a citizen of Louisiana. If he did then know it, he should have appeared and pleaded in abatement; and equity will not relieve him from the consequence of his own negligence. Jones v. League, 18 How. 76; Crim v. Handley, 94 U. S. 652. The decree in the suit in equity must therefore be affirmed. But it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawthorne v. Austin Organ Co.
...enunciated in this section is declaratory of the common law (Daniel on Negotiable Instruments (6th Ed.) § 303; Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194, 198, 3 S. Ct. 132, 27 L. Ed. 903; Texas L. & C. Co. v. Carroll & Iler, 63 Tex. 48, 51; Frailing v. Sieber, 168 Wis. 259, 169 N. W. 607), and no pri......
-
Baltimore Line Handling Co. v. Brophy
...failure to participate in the litigation does not require the Court to accept plaintiff's legal conclusions. Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U.S. 194, 199, 3 S.Ct. 132, 27 L.Ed. 903 (1883) (holding that “a mere conclusion of law ... is not admitted by demurrer or default”). Moreover, “[i]t ... remain......
-
Auctus Fund, LLC v. Sauer Energy, Inc.
...in scrutinizing whether the facts that it provides demonstrate Auctus's entitlement to relief. See Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U.S. 194, 199, 3 S.Ct. 132, 27 L.Ed. 903 (1883) ("[A] mere conclusion of law ... is not admitted by ... default."). Auctus's remaining securities law claim arises under s......
-
Riverside Oil & Refining Co. v. Dudley
...869; Crim v. Handley, 94 U. S. 652, 24 L. Ed. 216; Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157, 24 L. Ed. 422; Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194, 3 S. Ct. 132, 27 L. Ed. 903; Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640, 669, 4 S. Ct. 619, 28 L. Ed. 547; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 675, 6 S. Ct. ......