Francis Selden, Appellant v. Lawrence Myers, Philip Pike, Walter Lenox, and James McGuire

Decision Date01 December 1857
Citation15 L.Ed. 976,61 U.S. 506,20 How. 506
PartiesFRANCIS SELDEN, APPELLANT, v. LAWRENCE MYERS, PHILIP PIKE, WALTER LENOX, AND JAMES C. MCGUIRE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

It was a bill filled by Selden, under the circumstances particularly stated in the opinion of the court. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and Selden appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Coxe and Mr. Webb for the appellant, and by Mr. Bradley for the appellees.

As this was a case depending entirely upon testimony, where no general principle of equity jurisprudence was involved, the arguments drawn from that testimony are omitted.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

It appears that the appellant, for some years before the execution of the instruments hereinafter mentioned, kept a restaurant in the city of Washington, and had considerable dealings with Lawrence Myers & Company, who are merchants in New York, and who, from time to time, had supplied him with liquors for the use of his restaurant. On the 31st of December, 1846, the appellant gave his promissory note for $1,246.68 to Lawrence Myers & Company, payable with interest on the 1st of January, 1849, for value received; and on the same day he executed a deed to Walter Lenox, of the city of Washington, which recites that he is indebted to Lawrence Myers and Philip Pike, of the city of New York, trading under the name of Lawrence Myers & Company, in the sum of $1,246.68, for which sum they held his promissory note, dated the 31st of December, 1846, drawn to the order of the said Lawrence Myers & Company, payable on the 1st of January, 1849, and that the appellant was desirous to secure the payment of the said debt, and all interests and costs that may accrue thereon; and then proceeds to convey certain real property in the city of Washington to the said Lenox, in trust; that in case the appellant should fail to pay the said debt, or any part thereof, or any proper costs or charges that may accrue thereon, then, at the request of the holders of the said note, due and unpaid, to sell the said premises, (or such part thereof as the trustee may deem necessary to pay so much of the debt as shall be then unpaid,) in such manner, after such notice, at such time and place, and upon such terms and conditions, as the trustee shall deem most convenient for the interest of all concerned, and convey the same in fee simple to the purchaser.

This deed was duly acknowledged by Selden, according to law, before two justices of the peace for the county of Washington, and recorded among the land records of the county.

Some years after the expiration of the credit mentioned in these instruments—that is to say, in 1853-the trustee, at the request of Lawrence Myers & Company, advertised the premises to be sold on the 18th of July in that year; and thereupon Selden filed this bill to obtain an injunction to stay the sale.

The bill states, that in 1846 the appellant had a settlement of accounts with Lawrence Myers & Company; and after the settlement, Myers, in order to enable him to carry on his business, agreed that the company would make advances to him from time to time in goods or money, as he should need them, provided he would give them his note for $1,246.68, payable on the 1st of January, 1849; that he accepted the proposition, and thereupon executed the promissory note above mentioned; and afterwards, at the request of Myers, executed the deed of trust to Lenox.

The bill further charges, that it was the distinct understanding of the parties that advances should be made to the amount set forth in the note; but that only a small advance of about two hundred dollars had afterwards been made, and that sum diminished by sundry payments made by appellant; that the property conveyed by him in trust was of much greater value than the amount of the note; that he can neither read nor write; and when he executed the deed, did not know that the whole of said property was included, and was under the impression that it conveyed only a portion of it.

The bill further charges, that Lawrence Myers & Company persuaded him to execute the deed with the intention to defraud him, and since its execution had refused to make advances to him in money or goods; that the west helf of the lot conveyed in trust was advertised for sale by the trustee, and if the sale was allowed to proceed he would be injured and defrauded.

The members of the firm of Lawrence Myers & Company, and Lenox, the trustee, and McGuire, the auctioneer, were made parties defendants to the bill.

The answer of Lawrence Myers, who answers separately, denies that the note was given for the purpose stated in the bill, and states that it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Guild v. More
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 9 Octubre 1915
    ...Contr. 6th ed. 786; Best, Ev. 230, 235, 236; Cushing v. Rice, 46 Me. 303, 71 Am. Dec. 579; Thompson v. Bell, 37 Ala. 438; Selden v. Myers, 20 How. 506, 15 L. ed. 976; Lull v. Cass, 43 N.H. 62; Montgomery Pickering, 116 Mass. 227; Meyer v. Huneke, 55 N.Y. 412; Wharton v. Douglass, 76 Pa. 273......
  • Turner v. Gumbert
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1911
    ... 114 P. 33 19 Idaho 339 JOHN TURNER, Appellant, v. MARY C. GUMBERT, Respondent Supreme ... Krause, 8 N.D. 573, 80 N.W. 686; Selden ... v. Myers, 29 How. (U. S.) 506, 15 L.Ed ... ...
  • In re Estate of O'Brien
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 30 Septiembre 1927
    ... ... to be taken by appellant, and by section 7182, providing for ... for rehearing denied ... James ... F. Ailshie and Edward H. Berg, for ... to the writing. (Selden v. Myers, 20 How. (U.S.) ... 506, 15 L.Ed. 976; ... ...
  • Ellis v. Harrison
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Mayo 1891
    ...Chapman, 6 Conn. 347; Coffing v. Taylor, 16 Ill. 457; Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt, 1 John. Ch. 273; Martin v. Hamlin, 18 Mich. 364; Selden v. Myers, 20 How. 506; Henderson v. Mayhew, 2 Gill. 393; 1 Greenl. Ev. [14 Ed.] sec. 275. Under the pleadings and evidence plaintiff was entitled to reco......
  • 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