John Craighead Et Al Appellants v. Joseph and Alexander Wilson
| Decision Date | 01 December 1855 |
| Citation | 59 U.S. 199,15 L.Ed. 332,18 How. 199 |
| Parties | JOHN B. CRAIGHEAD ET AL. APPELLANTS, v. JOSEPH E. AND ALEXANDER WILSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States, for the eastern district of Louisiana.
There were briefs filed in this case by Mr. Robertson and Mr. Taylor, for the appellants, and by Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Janin, for the appellees; but the question of jurisdiction was not raised.
This is an appeal from the circuit court of the United States, for the eastern district of Louisiana.
During the opening argument of this case, doubts were suggested whether the decree of the circuit court was final within the act of congress, and the attention of the court was directed to that question.
The complainants filed their bill in the circuit court, claiming as heirs a part of the property of Joseph and Lavinia Erwin, deceased. Erwin died in 1829, in the parish of Iberville, having made his will in 1828. His property, real and personal, was much embarrassed; the persons claiming an interest in the succession were numerous; and, from the loose manner in which the property was managed by the testator in his lifetime, and by those who succeeded him, great difficulty was found in the distribution of the estate.
The circuit court, having ascertained the heirship of the claimants and their relative rights in the succession, referred the matter to a special master, 'to take an account of the successions of the said Joseph Erwin, sen., Joseph Erwin, jr., and Lavinia Erwin, in so far as it may be necessary to state the accounts between the plaintiffs and the heirs at law, defendants in this suit, to ascertain the property in kind that remains in the possession and control of either of the defendants, except Adams and Whiteall, as aforesaid—what has been sold, and the prices of the same and the profits thereof; and he will report all the encumbrances that have been discharged by either of the defendants on the same, and make to them all just allowances for payments, and permanent and useful improvements, and just expenses, and to ascertain what may be due to the said plaintiffs from either defendant; and the said master may make a special report of any matters that may be requisite to a full adjustment of the questions in the cause.'
By the 22d section of the judiciary act of 1789, it is provided, that final decrees of the circuit court, where the amount in controversy exceeds two thousand dollars, may be brought before this court by an appeal. The law intended that one appeal should settle the matter in controversy between the parties; and this would be the result in all cases where the appeal is taken on a final decree, unless it should be reversed or modified by this court.
The cases are numerous which have been dismissed on the ground that the appeals were taken from interlocutory decrees. In Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206, it was held, 'where the circuit court decreed that the complainants were entitled to two sevenths of certain property, and referred the matter to a master in chancery, to take and report an account of it, and then reserved all other matters in controversy between the parties until the coming in of the master's report,' was not a final decree on which an appeal could be taken. And, in the same volume, 209, Pulliam et al. v. Christian, where 'a decree of the circuit court, setting aside a deed made by a bankrupt before his bankruptcy; directing the trustees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillespie v. United States Steel Corporation
...F.2d 169, 179 (C.A. 2); Holdsworth v. United States, 179 F.2d 933 (C.A. 1); Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 12 L.Ed. 404; Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 15 L.Ed. 332; United States Alkali Export Ass'n v. United States, 325 U.S. 196, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554; Cohen v. Beneficial Ind. Lo......
-
Wells v. Shriver
...purpose, as to state an account between the parties, upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final. Craighead v. Wilson, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 199 (15:332); Beebe v. Russell, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 283 (15:668). ¶15 But even if an account be ordered taken, if such accounting ......
-
National Brake & Elec. Co. v. Christensen
... ... 881] ... John S ... Miller, Edward O. Brown, and Charles A ... petitioner ... Joseph ... B. Cotton, of New York City, Louis Quarles, ... Gibson, 7 How. 650, 12 L.Ed. 857; Craighead v ... Wilson, 18 How. 199, 15 L.Ed. 332; Beebe ... ...
-
Coeur D'Alene Turf Club, Inc. v. Cogswell
...injury to the appellants. See Forgay et al. v. Conrad, 6 How. (47 U.S.) 201, 12 L.Ed. 404 (1848); Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. (59 U.S.) 199, 201, 15 L.Ed. 332, 333 (1856); 6 Moore's Federal Practice 54.13 (2nd ed. 1966). While petitioners claim that they are threatened with irreparable inj......