Harrison v. Richards

• Decision Date: 28 August 1915
• Docket Number: 4291.
• Citation: 226 F. 196
• Parties: HARRISON et al. v. RICHARDS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

226 F. 196

HARRISON et al. v. RICHARDS.

No. 4291.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

August 28, 1915

W. H Keating and James A. Devitt, both of Oskaloosa, Iowa (Edward R. Mason, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Frank M. Lowe, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellants.

William McNett, of Ottumwa, Iowa (McNett & McNett and Chester W Whitmore, all of Ottumwa, Iowa, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.

AMIDON District Judge.

William S. Richards held a judgment recovered in the state court of Iowa against James Harrison back in the early '90's. He brought suit in the federal court nearly 20 years later, asking to have this judgment revived; but the main feature of the suit was in the nature of a creditors' bill to reach certain lands standing in the name of Hettie W. Harrison, the wife of James Harrison upon the ground that the consideration for the lands was paid by Mr. Harrison. In that suit the trial court found in favor of Richards. It revived the judgment stating the amount due to be $21,748.48, and provided that that sum should draw interest at 10 per cent. from the date of the decree, and that the original judgment should be merged in the new judgment, and further provided that the amount collected from Hettie W. Harrison under the decree should be credited on the judgment. The decree also established the claim against the lands standing in the name of Hettie W. Harrison in the sum of $10,355. It must be borne in mind that the reviving of the original judgment in favor of Richards was a mere incident of the creditors' bill. An appeal was sued out from this decree by Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, and a supersedeas bond given in the sum of $10,000. Our opinion is reported in 196 F. 770, 116 C.C.A. 394. Our decree as at first entered simply reversed the judgment of the trial court, with costs, amounting to $835.55. It further directed the trial court 'to dismiss the bill of complaint.'

After the filing of our opinion and the entering of judgment thereon, the appellee, Richards, filed a petition for rehearing. In it he asked that our judgment be modified, so as not to vacate or impair that part of the decree which revived and continued the judgment in his favor against Harrison. In his petition for rehearing he expressly stated that the validity of the judgment was in no way questioned by the appeal, and that our decree, if allowed to stand, would not only deprive him of a judgment to which he was legally entitled, and in respect to the revival of which there was no assignment of error, but it would subject him to the peril of a plea in bar to a suit pending in the state court to revive the judgment. Acting upon this petition we...