Richard Hendrickson, Complainant and Appellant v. Samuel Hinckley

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CURTIS
• Citation: Richard Hendrickson, Complainant and Appellant v. Samuel Hinckley, 58 U.S. 443, 17 How. 443, 15 L.Ed. 123 (1854)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1854
• Parties: RICHARD H. HENDRICKSON, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL L. HINCKLEY

58 U.S. 443

17 How. 443

15 L.Ed. 123

RICHARD H. HENDRICKSON, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL L. HINCKLEY.

December Term, 1854

THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Ohio.

On the 26th of October, 1851, Hendrickson, as survivor of Hendrickson and Campbell, filed a bill in the United States circuit

court, for the district of Ohio, alleging that on the 21st day of April, 1848, Hinckley brought a suit on the law side of said court, on three promissory notes against said Hendrickson and one Andrew Campbell. That said Hendrickson and Campbell set up in their pleadings, and on the trial, for defences, the want of consideration, fraud in obtaining the notes, and payment. That the case was tried on these issues, by a jury, and thereupon a judgment was recovered against said defendants for $2,386.11, and costs of suit. That afterwards said Campbell and Hendrickson moved for a new trial, which, on consideration, was refused. That Campbell has since died insolvent. That before, and after said suit was brought, said Campbell and Hendrickson had a good set-off against said Hinckley, amounting to $3,337.85. That before the trial they consulted their counsel respecting it, and that both counsel and client concluded not to set it up on that trial. That, on the trial, said defendants were surprised, by the introduction, on the part of the plaintiff, of letters written by said Campbell, and to which the jury gave undue weight. That Hinckley is a non-resident of the State of Ohio, and has no property besides said judgment, in said State.

The bill then prays for a full discovery from the defendant, as to all the facts alleged, and on the grounds of fraud, surprise, non-residence of the defendant, Hinckley, and the equitable jurisdiction of courts of chancery over claims of only set-off, prays that the judgment be enjoined, and his claim be liquidated—and he offers to pay any balance which may be found to be due said Hinckley, on such final adjustment.

September 26, 1851, the writ of injunction issued. On the 7th of May, 1852, the defendant, Henckley, filed his answer, denying, seriatim, all the material allegations in the bill, and, under the rule of court, denied all equity therein, and prayed to have the same benefit from his answer as if he had demurred to the bill.

At the October term, 1852, the case was heard on the demurrer, the injunction dissolved, and the bill dismissed. From this decree said complainant appealed to this court.

The case was submitted, on printed arguments, by Mr. Hart, for the appellant, and Mr. Mills, for the appellee.

In order to explain the points made by counsel, it would be necessary to enter into a particular statement of the facts in the case. They are therefore omitted.

Mr. Justice CURTIS delivered the opinion of the court.

The complainant filed his bill in the circuit court of the

United States, for the district of Ohio; and that court having ordered the bill to be dismissed, on a demurrer, for...