Hollander v. Fechheimer
| Decision Date | 13 April 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 146,146 |
| Parties | HOLLANDER et al. v. FECHHEIMER et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a bill in equity, filed by the firm of Fechheimer, Goodkind & Co., against Justus Hollander, a judgment debtor, Samuel Bieber, his assignee, and a number of preferred creditors under such assignment, alleging that the assignment was fraudulent and void, and praying that Hollander might be required to disclose the amount of his indebtedness to each of his preperred creditors; the amount of goods purchased by him immediately prior to his failure, and the names of the persons from whom purchased; the amount of his indebtedness to each of his creditors before making such purchases; the amount and character of goods he had in stock prior to his last purchases, and sundry other particulars; the amount of property turned over to Bieber under the assignment,—and also praying for the appointment of a receiver, the setting aside of the assignment, the payment of the plaintiffs' claim, and an injunction against the defendant Bieber from further proceeding under the assignment.
The bill set forth, as the basis of plaintiffs' right to sue, an indebtedness in the sum of $1,000, by judgment recovered in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, upon which execution had been issued and returned nulla bona, a note for $1,000, and goods purchased to the amount of $1,846.50.
Demurrers were filed to this bill by Bieber and certain of the preferred creditors, which were sustained, and the bill dismissed. Upon appeal to the general term, the decree of the special term dismissing the bill was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Answers were subsequently filed by the several defendants, and testimony taken; and upon a hearing upon pleadings and proofs the bill was again dismissed, and an appeal taken to the general term, which again reversed the decree of the special term, declared the assignment to be fraudulent and void, and decreed that the complainants recover from the defendant Bieber the amount of their judgment, set out in the bill of complaint, together with their costs, to be taxed by the clerk, and that the case be remanded to the special term for further proceedings. From this decree defendants appealed to this court.
Leon Tobriner, for appellants.
James Francis Smith and Henry E. Davis, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is clear that this appeal must be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. T e decree from which the appeal was taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darden v. State
...which will confer jurisdiction on this court on appeal or writ of error. Judgment is not final until sentence is passed. 130 U.S. 167; 162 U.S. 326; U.S. 447. 2. The question as to the power of this court to modify a judgment of conviction in a criminal case depends solely upon the construc......
-
Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Co.
... ... 227, 231, 232, 13 Sup.Ct. 64, 36 ... L.Ed. 951; South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U.S. 353, ... 357, 14 Sup.Ct. 871, 38 L.Ed. 682; and Hollander v ... Fechheimer, 162 U.S. 326, 238, 16 Sup.Ct. 795, 40 L.Ed ... 985-- a serious question arises whether a pecuniary amount is ... so directly ... ...
-
Massachusetts Protective Ass'n v. Kittles
... ... $3,000, exclusive of interest. New England Mortgage Co ... v. Gay, 145 U.S. 123, 130, 12 Sup.Ct. 815, 36 L.Ed. 646; ... Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U.S. 326, 16 Sup.Ct ... 795, 40 L.Ed. 985 ... The ... proposition that the defendant may continue sick, and may ... ...
-
California Nat Bank v. Stateler
...McGourky v. Railway Co., 146 U. S. 536, 13 Sup. Ct. 170; Insurance Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374, 16 Sup. Ct. 318; Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326, 16 Sup. Ct. 795. The writ of error is therefore dismissed. ...