Knox County v. Harshman
Decision Date | 27 January 1890 |
Citation | 133 U.S. 152,10 S.Ct. 257,33 L.Ed. 586 |
Parties | KNOX COUNTY v. HARSHMAN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 152-154 intentionally omitted] James Carr, for appellant.
F. K. Skinker, for appellee.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
A court of equity does not interfere with judgments at law, unless the complainant has an equitable defense of which he could not avail himself at law, or had a good defense at law which he was prevented from availing himself of by fraud or accident, unmixed with negligence of himself or his agents. Insurance Co. v. Hodgson, 7 Cranch, 332, 336; Hendrickson v. Hinckley, 17 How. 443, 445; Crim v. Handley, 94 U. S. 652; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 675, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 901. In the case before us, the bill in equity of the judgment debtor contains no allegation of any fraud on the part of the judgment creditor or his agents. The allegation, that the record of the judgment as it stands is a gross fraud upon the judgment debtor, is in terms, as it must be in legal effect, limited to the particulars specified in the bill. U.S. v. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372; Ambler v. Choteau, 107 U.S. 586, 590, 591, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556. The grounds assigned for the interposition of equity reduce themselves to two.
The first ground is that the allegations in the petition on which the judgment was recovered were false, especially in that they alleged that the subscription was made under the General Statutes of Missour, authorizing the levy of a tax sufficient to pay the amount of the bonds and coupons. But this ground is fully met and disposed of by the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice MATTHEWS in Harshman v. Knox Co., 122 U. S. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1171, in which it was said: 122 U. S. 319, 320, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177.
The other ground relied on is that the county had no notice of the commencement of the action againstit. The bill of the county and the argument of its counsel proceed on two hardly consistent suppositions,—that the clerk of the county court was never served with process; and that he was negligent in not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smoot v. Judd
...there, the party injured must seek his relief against the marshal." Accordingly equitable relief was denied. Knox County v. Harshman, 133 U. S. 152, 10 Sup. Ct. 257, 33 L. Ed. 586, was a bill in equity to restrain the enforcement of a judgment at law in favor of Harshman and against the cou......
-
King v. Davis
... ... Walker v. Robbins, 14 How. 584, 585, 14 L.Ed. 552; ... Knox County v. Harshman, 133 U.S. 152, 156, 10 ... Sup.Ct. 257, 33 L.Ed. 586 ... Whether ... ...
-
National Sur. Co. v. State Bank of Humboldt, Neb.
...Knox county was just and right, and that it had no defense to the cause of action upon which it was founded (page 155, 133 U.S., and page 258, 10 Sup.Ct., 33 L.Ed. 586), and then held that the failure of the county clerk to notice of the service of the summons was so far the negligence of t......
-
Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger Transp. Corp.
...10 Pet. 497, 505, 35 U.S. 497, 505, 9 L.Ed. 508; Brown v. Buena Vista County, 95 U.S. 157, 24 L.Ed. 422; Knox County, Mo. v. Harshman, 133 U.S. 152, 154, 10 S. Ct. 257, 33 L.Ed. 586; Pickford v. Talbott, 225 U.S. 651, 661, 32 S.Ct. 687, 56 L.Ed. 1240; Chase Nat. Bank v. City of Norwalk, 291......