James Todd, Thomas Warren, Tristram Mitchell, Wiliam Mitchell Woodbury Storer Israel Waterhouse v. Charles Daniel

• Decision Date: 01 January 1842
• Citation: 16 Pet. 521,41 U.S. 521,10 L.Ed. 1054
• Parties: JAMES TODD, THOMAS WARREN, TRISTRAM G. MITCHELL, WILIAM C. MITCHELL and WOODBURY STORER, Administrator of ISRAEL WATERHOUSE, deceased, v. CHARLES DANIEL, Complainant and Appellee
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

41 U.S. 521

16 Pet. 521

10 L.Ed. 1054

JAMES TODD, THOMAS WARREN, TRISTRAM G. MITCHELL,

WILIAM C. MITCHELL and WOODBURY STORER, Administrator of ISRAEL

WATERHOUSE, deceased,

v. CHARLES DANIEL, Complainant and Appellee.

January Term, 1842

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Maine.

Davies, for the appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal. He stated, that the appeal had been actually entered in the circuit court, in the names of the appellants mentioned on the record; but that there were other defendants in the circuit court, against whom the decree had been rendered, who had not joined in the appeal, not having had any regular notice of such appeal. They were Hayes, Gouch and Westcott. Of the above-named appellants, James Todd alone enters his appearance here, by his counsel, Francis O. J. Smith, Esq., who now brings up the record, and proposes to prosecute the appeal on behalf of Todd, in this court, singly, without any of the rest whose names, however, (appearing in the record as appellants), are extended on the docket by the clerk.

The counsel for Todd, by writing filed in the case here, February 16th, disclaims and disavows any and all appearance for either of the other defendants named as appellants. The other defendants who joined in the appeal have subsequently abandoned any further prosecution of it; and have given notice to the complainant's counsel to that effect, submitting to the decree, and some of them offering to pay their respective amounts, according to the deeree of the circuit court; the last notice by the Mitchells being dated January 28th, 1842, at which time, the appeal here had not been entered, nor the record filed.

Smith, for the appellant, James Todd, opposed the motion.—The only party here actually interested in the appeal is Mr. Todd. Although he had been only an agent in the transaction out of which the controversy involved in this suit arose, the decree of the circuit court affected him as principal, and subjected him to the payment of a considerable sum of money. It was to controvert this claim, that the appeal had been prosecuted. If others, who had been appellants, had withdrawn their appeal, or if some of them did not enter an appeal, the party who now asks to maintain it, should not be injured by this condition of the case.

STORY, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court for the district of Maine, in a suit in equity, in which the appellants were the original defendants. After the decree was made, an appeal was claimed by all the defendants, and allowed by the court. A part of the defendants, who originally claimed the appeal, before any further proceedings, abandoned their appeal; and the residue of them, excepting Todd, have, since the session of this court, abandoned their appeal, and Todd only has entered his appearance. But the record stands in the names of all the defendants, as parties appellant. Under these circumstances, the counsel for the appellee has moved the court to dismiss the appeal, for irregularity and want of jurisdiction, upon the ground, that it cannot be maintained on behalf of Todd alone.

There is no doubt, that the appeal having...