Marsh v. Whitmore
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 22 L.Ed. 482,21 Wall. 178,88 U.S. 178 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1874 |
| Parties | MARSH v. WHITMORE |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Maine.
On the 12th of March, 1869, Marsh, of Maryland, filed a
Page 179
bill in the court below against Whitmore, an attorney and counsellor of Maine, to compel him to account for certain bonds of the Kennebec and Portland Railroad Company, and to charge him with certain notes of the same corporation, received from him, the complainant; and which bonds and notes the bill alleged that he, the complainant, had, in the year 1855, placed in the hands of the defendant as security for advances to be made by him in effecting a compromise with the complainant's creditors in Maine, and for a reasonable compensation to himself for his own services as counsel.
As to the bonds. The bill alleged that in the year 1856, they had been sold by the defendant at public auction in disregard of his duty, and at the sale were bid in by himself, through the intervention of third parties, at an amount greatly below their value at the time, which conduct the bill charged to have been in fraud of the complainant's rights, and not to have come to his knowledge 'until lately.'
As to the notes. The bill alleged that at the time they were placed with the defendant, he was instructed to institute suits upon them and to attach certain personal property of the corporation pointed out to him, and if the notes were not thus paid, to collect them from the stockholders, who were personally liable; and that the defendant agreed to attend diligently to their collection; that they could have been collected of the company or stockholders, and that if they were not collected the failure was attributable to his gross neglect. The prayer of the bill was that the defendant might be charged with the full amount of the notes and interest, and might be decreed to surrender the bonds, or, if that was impossible, to pay their full value in money; or that such other or further relief might be granted as the justice of the case might require.
The bill called upon the defendant to answer its several allegations touching these two matters; and to answer also certain specific interrogatories which were annexed.
Among the interrogatories was this one, relating to the bonds:-
Page 180
'Did you or did you not represent to the complainant, after the sale of the bonds, that you had made such sale at public auction after advertising the same; and that such sale was bon a fide?'
The answer denied that the bonds and notes were intrusted to the defendant for the purpose alleged in the bill, but averred——
In regard to the bonds. That they were placed with him as security for any liabilities which one Paine and himself might incur for the complainant and for the payment of his three promissory notes, exceeding in amount $3000, and one note for $90, upon which the defendant was surety for the complainant; that the complainant never paid either of these notes, and that after having informed him, on the 27th of August, 1856 (the promissory notes of the complainant being then due and unpaid), that the bonds would be sold on the 1st of October following, and after repeated postponements, made at his request, the bonds, in June, 1857, after notice to him, were sold at public auction in order to pay his, the complainant's, notes; that at the sale some of the bonds were purchased by third persons, but that the larger portion were bid in by the defendant; that the prices given were the full and fair value of the bonds at the time, and greater than their market value for years afterwards; that the amounts bid were indorsed on the notes of the complainant, and an account of the sales, showing the prices obtained and the names of the purchasers, was transmitted to him; that subsequently, in 1858, in an interview at Augusta, the defendant offered to obtain the bonds and return them to the complainant if he would pay his notes, and that he replied that the bonds were not then worth as much as they were sold for, and that the defendant must keep what was obtained, and if he were ever able he would pay the balance; that subsequently the bonds were greatly depreciated in the market, and in 1858 and 1859 were sold as low as at the rate of ten dollars for the hundred.
To the specific interrogatory, abovementioned, as having been put to him about the bonds, the defendant answered:-
Page 181
'I did after said sale send to the complainant the auctioneer's account of the sale, giving names of purchasers and prices for which the bonds sold, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., No. S038571
...need of "alteration," "it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us." (Minor v. Happersett (1874) 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 178, 22 L.Ed. 482 (per Waite, C.J.).) "The judges have no option in the matter. They are bound, hand and foot, by the shackles of [the] statute." (Cardozo, L......
-
United States v. New York Great A. & P. Tea Co., Criminal No. 16153.
...interest and duty; and, `Constituted as humanity is, in the majority of cases duty would be overborne in the struggle.' Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 178, 22 L.Ed. 482. The law, therefore, will always condemn the transactions of a party on his own behalf when, in respect to the matter concern......
-
United States v. Louisiana, Case No. 3:11-cv-00470-JWD-RLB
...(1875); see also Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 9, 102 S. Ct. 2194, 2199, 72 L. Ed. 2d 628, 635 (1982) (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 178). Accordingly, "although the Constitution was promulgated in the name of 'We, the people of the United States,' the individual states reta......
-
Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co., Nos. 28984
...in the majority of cases duty would be overborne in the struggle.’ Wardell v. Railroad Co., 1 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cas. 427; Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 178, 183 (22 L.Ed. 482). ‘It is to avoid the necessity of any such inquiry, in which justice might be balked, that the rule takes so general a ......
-
United States v. Louisiana, Case No. 3:11-cv-00470-JWD-RLB
...(1875); see also Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 9, 102 S. Ct. 2194, 2199, 72 L. Ed. 2d 628, 635 (1982) (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 178). Accordingly, "although the Constitution was promulgated in the name of 'We, the people of the United States,' the individual states reta......
-
United States v. Louisiana, Case No. 3:11-cv-00470-JWD-RLB
...(1874) ; see also Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 9, 102 S.Ct. 2194, 2199, 72 L.Ed.2d 628, 635 (1982) (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 178 ). Accordingly, "although the Constitution was promulgated in the name of 'We, the people of the United States,' the individual states retai......
-
Crebbin v. Deloney
...378; 8 Utah 350; 145 U.S. 368; 149 U.S. 287; 150 U.S. 193; 158 U.S. 150; 7 How. 234; 143 U.S. 224; 19 Ark. 16; 14 Ark. 62; 124 U.S. 183; 21 Wall. 178; 46 Ark. 25; 68 F. 489; 20 R. I. 202; 1 How. 161; 19 Ark. 16; 117 Cal. 215; 83 F. 794; 70 Vt. 52; 160 U.S. 171; 36 A. 1099; 64 Ark. 345; 76 F......
-
Baxter v. National Mortg. Loan Co., 29132.
...upon final hearing. Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. 210, 222, 12 L.Ed. 1051; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87, 95, 17 L.Ed. 836; Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 178, 185, 22 L.Ed. 482; Sullivan v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 94 U.S. 806, 811, 24 L.Ed. 324; Mercantile National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 567......