Hollingsworth v. Fry
Decision Date | 01 October 1800 |
Citation | 4 U.S. 345,1 L.Ed. 860,4 Dall. 345 |
Parties | Hollingsworth v. Fry. |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
IN equity. The bill, after setting forth a variety of transactions between the parties, relative to a tract of land, mills, and mill race, in Dauphin county, states, that on the trial of a writ of partition for the premises, they consented to withdraw a juror, and entered into the following agreement, dated the 19th of November 1790:
It, also, appeared from the pleadings and exhibits that the bond, required by the agreement, was duly executed on the part of the plaintiff; that the referees undertook the business of the reference; and that on the 13th of April 1791, the following report was filed:
'We the referees, &c. report that, after hearing the parties, their allegations, and witnesses, and investigating their accounts and vouchers, we are of opinion, that George Fry is reasonably entitled to the sum of 3646l. 6s. 2 3/4d. specie; that being the one moiety, or half part, of his expenditures on the lands, mills, and their appurtenances, in question, after giving John Hollingsworth credit for the money by him expended on the same lands.'
It, also, appeared, that the plaintiff filed a number of exceptions, which the Supreme Court, after argument, over-ruled on the 2d of July 1791, and gave judgment on the report; and that, on the 26th of September 1796, the complainant sent his son, to tender to the defendant, the amount of the report, in his favour; which the defendant refused to accept.
Upon these general premises, the bill proceeded to complain, that the defendant had appeared in the Supreme Court, by his counsel, on the 2d of July 1791, alleging the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bland v. Windsor & Cathcart
...been laches to prosecute the claim, or long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights. Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U.S. 201; Hollingsworth v. Frye, 4 U.S. 345; Equity Jurisprudence (4 Ed.), sec. 64a; Perry v. Craig, 3 Mo. 516; Smith v. Washington, 88 Mo. 475; Piatt v. Vattier, 34 U.S. 405; ......
-
Bassett v. City Bank & Trust Co.
... ... shall enable him to make his selection with certainty of ... profit one way, and without loss any way. This mode of ... procedure is unfair; contrary to natural justice; and in ... exclusion of mutuality." Banks v. Judah, 8 ... Conn. 145, 161, quoting Hollingsworth v. Fry, 4 ... Dall. 345, 347, 1 L.Ed. 860; 21 C.J. 225 ... The ... facts already stated as to the conduct of City and its ... receiver in reliance upon its title to the assets transferred ... to it by Mutual, and the situation resulting from that course ... of action, demonstrate ... ...
-
Haney-Campbell Co. v. Preston Creamery Ass'n
...other parts can be given thereto. Heywood v. Heywood, 42 Me. 229 (66 Am. Dec. 277); Randel v. Canal Co., 1 Har. (Del.) 151; Hollingsworth v. Fry, 4 Dall. 345 (Fed. No. 6,619, 1 L.Ed. 860); Baron v. Placide, 7 La.Ann. 229. There is nothing which inheres in the words referred to, nor in the c......
-
Gibson v. Herriott
...Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587; Royal Bank v. Grand Junction R., etc., Co., 125 Mass. 490; Harkness v. Underhill, 1 Black, 316; Hollingsworth v. Fry, 4 Dall. 345; Cox v. Montgomery, 36 Ill. 398; Bliss v. Pritchard, 67 Mo. 181; Smith v. Washington, 11 Mo. App. 525; Castner v. Walrod, 83 Ill. I......