Ex parte Morris and Johnson
| Decision Date | 01 December 1869 |
| Parties | EX PARTE MORRIS AND JOHNSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was a petition presented by Mr. P. Phillips, in behalf of Morris and Johnson, for a writ of mandamus against Richard Busteed, judge of the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the facts, and delivered the opinion of the court.
The United States filed an information in the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, against certain bales of cotton, which it was alleged were liable to seizure and confiscation, and had come into the possession of the petitioners. The court entered a personal decree against them for the value of the cotton. They brought the case here by appeal. This court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause, with directions to the District Court 'to cause restitution to be made to the appellants of whatever they have been compelled to pay under that decree.' A mandate to this effect was sent to the District Court.* Nothing effectual has been done under it. The petition, which is the foundation of this proceeding, was filed in this court. The district judge waived the issuing of a rule to show cause, and submitted a return by which the following facts appear.
After the rendition of the decree the judge made an order directing the money, when collected, to be distributed as therein prescribed. Five per cent. was to be paid to F. Q. Smith, the attorney of the United States; one per cent. to John Hardy, the marshal; one per cent. to E. C. F. Blake, the clerk of the court; and one-half of the entire amount, less costs and charges, to E. R. McCrosky, the informer. The other half was to be held in the registry of the court, subject to the order of the Secretary of the Treasury. A fi. fa. was issued on the decree, and the full amount collected from the petitioners. The mandate of this court was presented to the District Court, and proceedings instituted to enforce the order of restitution. Written answers were filed by the parties who were brought before the court.
McCrosky, the informer, was beyond the limits of the State of Alabama. He did not appear or answer. The district attorney admitted that he had received the amount adjudged to him; but insisted that he had a right to hold it. In his oral examination before the court it was proposed to show by his testimony that he had received a large part of the money paid to the informer. This was objected to by his counsel, and the objection was sustained by the court.
The clerk answered that he had received nothing under the order.
The marshal answered that after paying Smith and McCrosky, he had deposited the residue, less the costs of the case, in the First National Bank of Selma, pursuant to instructions from the Interior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Casper v. Joyce
...of bonds and interest are of binding force. Lusk State Bank v. Town Council, 48 Wyo. 447. The same principal is recognized in Ex Parte Morris, 9 Wall. 605. The evidence wholly failed to show negligence on the part Joyce. On the contrary the evidence showed a faithful performance of official......
-
Lucas v. Lamb
... ... this cause. 2 R. C. L. 297; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, ... 34 S.W.2d 85, 327 Mo. 115; Ex parte Morris & Johnson, 9 Wall ... 605, 19 L.Ed. 799; Nodaway County v. Kidder, 129 ... S.W.2d 857, ... ...
-
Lucas v. Lamb
...County had original jurisdiction of this cause. 2 R.C.L. 297; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 34 S.W. (2d) 85, 327 Mo. 115; Ex parte Morris & Johnson, 9 Wall. 605, 19 L. Ed. 799; Nodaway County v. Kidder, 129 S.W. (2d) 857, 344 Mo. 795; Third Natl. Bank v. St. Charles Savs. Bank, 149 S.W. 495, 244 ......
-
In re Pure Penn Petroleum Co.
...17 L.Ed. 693; Davis v. Gaines, 104 U. S. 386, 391, 26 L.Ed. 757; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350, 374-375, 21 L.Ed. 959; Ex parte Morris, 9 Wall. 605, 607, 19 L.Ed. 799; Bank of United States v. Bank of Washington, 6 Pet. 8, 8 L.Ed. 299; Mackenzie v. A. Engelhard & Sons Co., 266 U.S. 131, 143-......