Hildreth v. Grandin

• Decision Date: 06 November 1899
• Docket Number: 1,237.
• Citation: 97 F. 870
• Parties: HILDRETH et al. v. GRANDIN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

97 F. 870

HILDRETH et al. v. GRANDIN et al.

No. 1,237.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 6, 1899

B. E Ingwaldson, for plaintiffs in error.

John Carmody (C. E. Leslie, on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

The record in this case which we are called upon to review contains the following pleadings, orders, affidavits, and exhibits, in which the error complained of is supposed to inhere: First. A complaint in an action of ejectment which appears to have been instituted by John L. Grandin and William J. Grandin against E. G. La Bar (all of whom are defendants in error) in the circuit court of the United States for the district of North Dakota. Second. An amended answer to said complaint which appears to have been filed in behalf of the defendant La Bar by his attorneys, S. B Pinney, M. A. Hildreth, and B. E. Ingwaldson, who are the plaintiffs in error. Third. A reply which appears to have been filed in said cause on October 24, 1898, wherein it was alleged, in substance, that by a stipulation in writing made on October 7, 1898, the parties plaintiff and defendant to said cause had mutually agreed that said action should be settled and dismissed. Fourth. An order of court which appears to have been made in pursuance of said stipulation on October 24, 1898, directing that the action be dismissed without costs. Fifth. A notice signed by S. B. Pinney, as attorney for the defendant, which was addressed to John L Grandin and William J. Grandin and their attorneys, and to E. G. La Bar and Matilda La Bar, notifying them of a motion which was to be made in said cause on January 2, 1899, to vacate the aforesaid judgment, and to open up said cause, and to determine and adjudicate the rights of the defendants' attorneys therein. Sixth. An affidavit made by B. E. Ingwaldson, which appears to have been filed in support of the aforesaid motion, wherein it was charged, in substance, that on the 7th day of October, 1898, without the knowledge or consent of his attorneys, Edward G. La Bar, the defendant in said ejectment suit, had surreptitiously, and with intent to avoid the payment of the fees that were then due to his attorneys for services in said cause, collusively entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs therein to dismiss said action. Attached to said affidavit, as an exhibit, was a copy of the stipulation between the parties to said ejectment suit, in pursuance of which the action had been dismissed, and a copy of a quitclaim deed that had been executed to carry said stipulation into effect. Seventh. Two affidavits made by J. L. Grandin and by C. E. Leslie, his attorney, wherein it was denied that the plaintiffs in said ejectment suit had entered into a collusive agreement with the defendant therein to settle said cause to avoid the payment of fees due to the defendant's attorneys, and wherein it was further stated, in substance, that the agreement for a settlement of the cause had been entered into by the plaintiffs in good...