Ex parte Perry

Decision Date01 October 1880
Citation26 L.Ed. 43,102 U.S. 183
PartiesEX PARTE PERRY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

PETITION for mandamus.

The petitioners filed their libel against the ship 'Civilta' and the steam-tug 'Restless,' in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The vessels were seized under process sued out of that court, but were released on the claimant of each giving the requisite stipulation for value.

From a decree against the claimants they respectively prayed and perfected an appeal to the Circuit Court. A decree was there rendered, Oct. 26, 1877, in favor of the libellants, amounting in damages, interest, and costs to the sum of $11,400.90, which was apportioned equally between the two vessels. The decree provided that on the payment by the claimant of either vessel of one-half of the amount, with interest thereon to the date of payment, the proceedings against such vessel and her claimant be stayed for the collection of the residue until the return by the marshal of an execution unsatisfied against the claimant of the other vessel for the other half part of said amount, or until it should otherwise appear that the libellants were unable to enforce or collect the other part of said damages, costs, and interest against the claimant of the other vessel by process from that court.

The court further adjudged that unless the decree be fulfilled or satisfied, or proceedings stayed on appeal by filing security within ten days after service of a copy of the decree upon the proctors for the claimants, the stipulators, on the appeal to that court for damages and costs, should perform their engagements, or show cause within four days after the expiration of said ten days, or on the first day of jurisdiction thereafter, why execution should not issue against them, their goods, chattels, and lands.

Notice of an appeal to this court was given. The claimant of the 'Civilta' alone perfected his appeal within the required time, and rendered it a supersedeas.

A summary judgment for $17,323.22 was rendered by the Circuit Court, March 15, 1878, in favor of the libellants against John G. Baker, William B. Hatch, and Edward P. Hatch, stipulators on the appeal to that court, Baker being the claimant of the 'Restless.' A transcript of this judgment was filed in the office of the county clerk of Kings County, New York.

Edward P. Hatch was the owner of certain real estate in Brooklyn, which he had contracted to sell, but, by reason of the summary judgment, the vendee declined to complete the purchase. The Circuit Court, Jan. 4, 1879, ordered, on notice to all the parties, that on his depositing the sum of $6,200, the price of said real estate, in the United States Trust Company simultaneously with the delivery to him of the deed, the lien of the judgment on said real estate should be vacated, and that, if the judgment should be set aside, the Trust Company should pay to said Hatch such sum so deposited, with its accumulations,—'if not, the deposit, with its accumulations, to be held subject to the further order of the court.'

The deposit was made. The court, Jan. 3, 1879, denied a motion to set aside the judgment. An execution was sued our thereon May 7, 1879. The court, June 16, refused to direct that the amount so deposited be applied upon the execution, and made the further order, 'that said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 24, 1904
    ... ... 13, 1888, c. 866, Sec. 1, 25 Stat. 433, 434 (U.S. Comp ... St. 1901, p. 508); Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 221, ... 21 L.Ed. 447; Ex parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236, 20 L.Ed. 624; ... Cowley v. Railroad Co., 159 U.S. 569, 583, 16 ... Sup.Ct. 127, 40 L.Ed. 263; Cummings v. Bank, 101 ... 768; Ex ... parte Christy, 3 How. 296, 332, 11 L.Ed. 603; Ex parte ... Gordon, 1 Black, 503, 505, 17 L.Ed. 134; Ex parte Perry, 102 ... U.S. 183, 26 L.Ed. 43; In re Green, 141 U.S. 325, 12 ... Sup.Ct. 11, 35 L.Ed. 765; United States v. Severens, ... 71 F. 768, 18 ... ...
  • King v. McAndrews
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 28, 1901
  • Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1943
    ...to proceed to trial in advance of a review of the court's action. Ex parte Whitney, 13 Pet. 404, 408, 10 L.Ed. 221; Ex parte Perry, 102 U.S. 183, 186, 26 L.Ed. 43. Here the inconvenience to the litigants results alone from the circumstance that Congress has provided for review of the distri......
  • State ex rel. Bayha v. Philips
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1889
    ... ... Astor v ... Chambers, 1 Mo. 191; Miller v. Richardson, 1 ... Mo. 310; Castello v. Circuit Court, 28 Mo. 259; Ex ... parte Cox, 10 Mo. 742; State ex rel. v. Court of Common ... Pleas, 73 Mo. 560; State ex rel. v. Laughlin, ... 75 Mo. 358; State ex rel. v. Knight, ... County Court, 68 Mo. 29, 48; State v. Court of ... Appeals, 87 Mo. 374; Ex parte Schwab, 98 U.S. 240; Ex ... parte Perry, 102 U.S. 183, 186. Mandamus is never granted ... "for the purpose of undoing what has been done." Ex ... parte Burtis, 103 U.S. 238; Ex parte ... ...
  • 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