Rankin Schatzell Scott
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MARSHALL |
| Citation | 25 U.S. 177,6 L.Ed. 592,12 Wheat. 177 |
| Parties | RANKIN & SCHATZELL, Plaintiffs in Error, against SCOTT, Defendant in Error |
| Decision Date | 23 January 1827 |
ERROR to the District Court of Missouri.
This was an action of ejectment, brought in the Court below by the defendant in error, Scott, to recover the possession of a house and lot in the town of St. Louis. At the trial, a special verdict was found, stating, that in the year 1816, John Little married Marie Antoinette Labadie, who was then seised in fee of the house and lot in question. She died without issue, leaving the husband seised in fee of a moiety of the premises. He soon afterwards died without issue, and intestate. In April, 1821, judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court of the county where the premises lay, against the administrator of Little, in favour of Schatzell and another, for 2,747 dollars and 19 cents. In March following, another judgment was rendered against the same, in favour of B. Pratte, for 1,241 dollars. Execution was immediately issued upon the latter judgment, and the premises in question sold under it to Scott, the plaintiff in ejectment; and soon afterwards, another execution issued upon the first judgment, and the same premises were sold to Schatzell, one of the defendants below, and conveyed to him by the sheriff's deed. Rankin, who was tenant to Little in his lifetime, remained in possession of the premises after his death.
Page 178
and attorned to Schatzell. The question raised upon these facts was, whether the sale by the Sheriff, under the second judgment and first execution, devested the lien of the first judgment? The Court below determined it in the affirmative; and the cause was brought, by writ of error, before this Court.
Mr. Benton, for the plaintiffs in error, relied upon the express provisions of the statute of Missouri, to show that the local law made the first judgment a lien upon the land for the term of five years, within which time it was enforced, and Shatzell purchased under it.a For the general effect of a judgment lien, he cited the authorities in the margin.b
Mr. Talbot, contra.c
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the case, proceeded as follows:
The act of the then territorial government of Missouri, on which this question depends, is in these words: 'Judgments obtained in the General Court shall be a lien on the lands and tenements of the person or persons against whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Weninger, Bankruptcy No. 89-B-03463-A.
...374 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1654; City of New Britain, supra 347 U.S. at 85-86, 74 S.Ct. at 370; Rankin v. Scott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 177, 6 L.Ed. 592 (1827).12 Choate state-created liens take priority over later federal tax liens; inchoate liens do not. Assured Investment & Loan, supra at ......
-
United States v. State of Vermont, No. 272
...would be governed by the "cardinal rule" laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott, 12 Wheat. (25 U.S.) 177, 179, 6 L.Ed. 592 "The principle is believed to be universal that a prior lien gives a prior claim, which is entitled to prior satisfaction, out of the subjec......
-
WT Jones and Company v. Foodco Realty, Inc., No. 8824.
...it for the first time on appeal. 18 This rule was first postulated for the Supreme Court by Chief Justice Marshall in Rankin v. Scott, 12 Wheat. 177, 179, 6 L.Ed. 592 (1827), a case dealing with relative priorities between two private lienholders. No federal statute was involved. Prior to N......
-
United States v. Saidman, No. 12623.
...is the first in right." Authorities for this are numerous and we find that Chief Justice Marshall elucidated it in Rankin v. Scott, 1827, 12 Wheat. 177, 25 U.S. 177, at page 179, 6 L.Ed. "The principle is believed to be universal, that a prior lien gives a prior claim, which is entitled to ......
-
WT JONES AND COMPANY v. Foodco Realty, Inc., Civ. A. No. 531.
...by another principle of law, namely, `the first in time is the first in right.' As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Rankin v. Scott 12 Wheat. 177, 6 L.Ed. 592, "`The principle is believed to be universal, that a prior lien gives a prior claim, which is entitled to prior satisfaction, out......
-
Pasco v. Harley
...lien is as binding as a mortgage, and has the same capacity to hold land, so long as the statute preserves its force. Rankin v. Scott, 12 Wheat. 177, 6 L.Ed. 592. There can be no difference in principle between a mortgage and a statutory lien. The one is as binding as the other. Andrews v. ......
-
United States v. State of Vermont, 272
...would be governed by the "cardinal rule" laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in Rankin & Schatzell v. Scott, 12 Wheat. (25 U.S.) 177, 179, 6 L.Ed. 592 "The principle is believed to be universal that a prior lien gives a prior claim, which is entitled to prior satisfaction, out of the subjec......
-
In re Weninger, Bankruptcy No. 89-B-03463-A.
...374 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1654; City of New Britain, supra 347 U.S. at 85-86, 74 S.Ct. at 370; Rankin v. Scott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 177, 6 L.Ed. 592 (1827).12 Choate state-created liens take priority over later federal tax liens; inchoate liens do not. Assured Investment & Loan, supra at ......