Randall v. Howard
| Decision Date | 01 December 1862 |
| Citation | 17 L.Ed. 269,2 Black 585,67 U.S. 585 |
| Parties | RANDALL v. HOWARD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
The appellants in this case filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Maryland, on the 18th of February, 1859, against the appellee, to which he demurred, and the Court sustained the demurrer. The case came before the Supreme Court on appeal from this decree. The allegations of the bill are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Mayer, of Maryland, for Appellants.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Gale, of Maryland, contra.
This is a bill in equity filed in th Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland by the appellants against the appellee, who interposed a demurrer, which was sustained by the Court below, and an appeal was taken to this Court.
The bill states substantially, that the complainant, John Randall, Jr., was on the 6th of April, 1854, largely indebted to the defendant, to secure which indebtedness both of the complainants executed a mortgage on lands in Cecil County, Maryland, which lands were held in trust for the complainant Letitia's benefit for life. That soon after the mortgage matured the defendant filed his bill in the Cecil County Circuit Court for foreclosure and sale; and, on answer filed, a decree was passed on the 15th of October, 1855, for the sale of the mortgaged lands, time being given until 9th of October, 1856, to bring the money into Court. That in April, 1856, in order to defeat an attempt (charged to be fraudulent) by other parties to obtain possession of part of the lands mortgaged, it was agreed that the defendant with the assent of the complainants should petition the Court for an immediate sale, which was done, and the time for sale changed, and a friendly arrangement was made with the defendant that he was to buy the property ostensibly for himself, but was really to hold it in security for the decreed indebtedness, upon the satisfaction of which the purchase was to enure to the benefit of the complainant Letitia. That the sale took place on 14th October, 1856, and the defendant was the purchaser, (the 'friendly arrangement' continuing,) and that the property sold for less than its value on account of the general understanding that the sale was merely a formal one and not meant to divest the estate of the complainants. That the sale was ratified without objection from the complainants, under the assurance from the defendant that the property should, notwithstanding the ratification, stand as a security for the amount decreed, which was to be paid by instalments. That to perfect the form of sale, and to make it conform to the ostensible title of the purchaser, the complainants rented the property of the defendant. That having obtained an apparent title, the defendant has fraudulently determined to act as if he was the real owner, and is claiming the right to sell, and that through threats he extorted an agreement from the complainants, which was framed and meant to involve them in the recognition of his title. That the defendant, in furtherance of his object to oppress, has, by legal though irregular process, through the Sheriff of Cecil County, dispossessed the complainants.
The prayer of the bill is to restrain the defendant from disposing of the lands, and for the sale of so much of said lands as may be necessary to pay off the defendant according to the understanding prior to the purchase, and that the residue of the lands be conveyed to Mrs. Randall. There is also a prayer for general relief.
There are two questions presented by this record:
1. Upon the facts stated in this bill, are the complainants entitled in equity to the relief prayed for?
2. Has this Court jurisdiction?
The statements of this bill are vague and uncertain, frequently argumentative, and very rarely plain and direct. The whole bill lacks definitiveness. Agreements, friendly arrangements understandings, and fraudulent devices are freely spoken of, but the character of the agreements and the nature of the devices we do not learn. The bill seeks to establish a trust for the benefit of Mrs. Randall, growing out of certain proceedings in the Circuit Court of Cecil County, Maryland. Are the complainants in a situation to enforce the trust, if one is established? We think not.
The following allegations contain the charges relied on in the bill to establish the trust:
'And your orator and oratrix state and charge, that about April, in the year 1856, in consequence of a fraud being attempted against your complainants, through devices involving the possession of part of the land mortgaged as aforesa d, it was deemed proper for counteracting said fraud, that, on a petition to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelps v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
... ... judgment, in cases in which they had jurisdiction of the ... parties and the subject-matter. Randall v. Howard, 2 ... Black, 585, 17 L.Ed. 269; Nougue v. Clapp, ... 101 U.S. 551, 25 L.Ed. 1026; Central Trust Co. v. St ... Louis, A. & T. Ry ... ...
-
Olmstead v. United States Green v. Same Innis v. Same, 493
...Creath's Administrator v. Sims, 5 How. 192, 204, 12 L. Ed. 111; Kennett v. Chambers, 14 How. 38, 49, 14 L. Ed. 316; Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 586, 17 L. Ed. 269; Wheeler v. Sage, 1 Wall. 518, 530, 17 L. Ed. 646; Dent v. Ferguson, 132 U. S. 50, 64, 10 S. Ct. 13, 33 L. Ed. 242; Pope Ma......
-
Portsmouth Harbor Land Hotel Co v. United States
...the facts set forth in detail may not be disregarded as surplusage. They negative the existence of a cause of action. Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 17 L. Ed. 269; McClure v. Township of Oxford, 94 U. S. 429, 24 L. Ed. 129; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377, 7 Sup. Ct. 610, 30 L. Ed. 718.......
-
Bowers v. Cottrell
...in controversies between themselves, to enforce an agreement in fraud of the law or which was made to injure another. (Randall v. Howard, 67 U.S. 590, 17 L.Ed. 269; Eq., vol. 1, sec. 298; Bolt v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 156; Wilson v. Watts, 9 Md. 356.) Whenever two or more persons are engaged in ......