Jacob Payne Harrison, and George Huntingdon, Commercial Partners, Under the Name and Firm of Payne Harrison, Intervenors Plaintiffs In Error v. Jonathan Niles, James Niles, Leander Corey, and Stephen Allen, Partners Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Niles Co Plaintiffs, and William Broadwell, Syndic of Andrew Knox, Deceased Defendant
| Decision Date | 01 December 1857 |
| Citation | 61 U.S. 219,15 L.Ed. 895,20 How. 219 |
| Parties | JACOB U. PAYNE, J. P. HARRISON, AND GEORGE W. HUNTINGDON, COMMERCIAL PARTNERS, UNDER THE NAME AND FIRM OF PAYNE & HARRISON, INTERVENORS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JONATHAN J. NILES, JAMES M. NILES, LEANDER H. COREY, AND STEPHEN ALLEN, PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF NILES & CO., PLAINTIFFS, AND WILLIAM A. BROADWELL, SYNDIC OF ANDREW KNOX, DECEASED, DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.
As originally brought, the suit was Niles & Co. v. Knox, and the circumstances which led to the change of title are stated in the opinion of the court.
On the 8th of February, 1856, the Circuit Court dismissed the intervention, with costs, when the intervenors sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this court.
It was argued by Mr. Chilton for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Benjamin for the defendant. There were also briefs of Mr. Chilton and Mr. Davidge for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Pike for the defendant.
Mr. Benjamin thus noticed the point upon which the decision of the court turned:
1st. The writ of error must be dismissed. There is no such record as is required by the eleventh and thirty-first rules of the court. There is nothing but a petition of intervention, and an agreed statement of facts without any date, but which seems to have been made up after the new trial was refused; no answer, no pleadings, no bill of exceptions. (Keene v. Whitaker, 13 Pet., 459; Curtis v. Petitpain, 18 How., 110.)
2d. The judgment appealed from is one of which this court has no jurisdiction; the writ ought to be dismissed. (Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How., 550; Curtis v. Petitpain, 18 How., 110.)
This case is brought here by a writ of error directed to the Circuit Court for the eastern district of Louisiana.
It appears by the transcript, that Niles & Co., citizens of Ohio, brought suit in the Circuit Court against Andrew Knox, of Louisiana, for the price of certain machinery furnished to the latter for the use of his plantation. They claimed the vendor's privilege on the articles sold, which were still in possession of the vendee. The suit was instituted on the 21st of February, 1855, and on the 17th of April, 1855, a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for two thousand six hundred and eighty-six dollars and sixty-nine cents, with interest, and with the vendor's privilege on the machinery.
On the 19th of March, 1855, Payne & Harrison, the plaintiffs in error, citizens of Louisiana, filed in the Circuit Court a petition of intervention in the above-mentioned suit, alleging that Knox was indebted to them in a large sum of money, for which they held a mortgage on the plantation on which the machinery in question was erected; and claiming that their right by virtue of this mortgage was superior to the vendor's lien of Niles & Co., and prayed a citation for Niles & Co.; but did not pray for any process against Knox. Nor does the record show that he ever voluntarily appeared to or answered this petition. And on the 8th of February, 1856, it was by the judgment of the Circuit Court finally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Switzer
...56 Cal. 135; Beasley v. Prentice, 13 Sm. & M. 97. (a) Appellants must be parties to the judgment. Meyer v. Hotel Co., 163 Mo. 66; Payne v. Niles, 20 How. 219; Aiken Smith, 54 F. 894; Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U.S. 513; Guyon v. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 173; Hesing v. At......
-
United States v. Seigel
...109 U.S. 168, 173, 3 S.Ct. 108, 27 L.Ed. 895, 897; Bayard v. Lombard, et al., 1850, 9 How. 530, 551, 13 L.Ed. 245, 254; Payne v. Niles, 1858, 20 How. 219, 15 L.Ed. 895; Fitzgerald v. Evans, 8 Cir., 1892, 49 F. 426; Spangelo v. Northern Dakota Ry., 8 Cir., 1921, 276 F. 26; In re Trust No. 29......
-
THE FRAMLINGTON COURT
...court, and no judgment, either joint or several, was entered for or against it. The contention is entirely without merit. Payne v. Niles, 20 How. 219, 15 L. Ed. 895. The issues presented require construction of the charter and a somewhat lengthy review of the evidence for their decision. As......
-
Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...cited in support of the motion to dismiss are not inconsistent with our decision that we have jurisdiction of this case. Payne v. Niles, 20 How. 219, 15 L.Ed. 895, involves no problem of substitution, but holds only that one not a party to an action can neither appeal nor be made a party de......