Richard Stockton, Appellant v. James Ford

• Decision Date: 01 December 1855
• Citation: 18 How. 418,15 L.Ed. 395,59 U.S. 418
• Parties: RICHARD C. STOCKTON, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. FORD
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

59 U.S. 418

18 How. 418

15 L.Ed. 395

RICHARD C. STOCKTON, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. FORD.

December Term, 1855

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

A full history of the transactions which led to the dispute, is given in the report of the case of Stockton v. Ford, 11 How. 232.

It was submitted, on printed arguments, by Mr. Stockton and Mr. Johnson, for appellant, and by Mr. Duncan, for appellee.

The arguments were so connected with the facts of the case, that it is impossible to give the points by themselves.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

The bill was filed by the plaintiff to charge the plantation and slaves of the defendant with a judicial mortgage, originally obtained by one Prior, against the firm of N. and E. Ford and Co. The plaintiff claims an interest in this mortgage, first, by purchase on execution against Prior; and second, by a trust created in the assignment of the same by Prior, under which the defendant derived title to it. The bill sets out the sale of the mortgage and purchase by the plaintiff, and also the assignment of the same by Prior to Jones, and by him to the defendant. The assignment to Jones provided for the payment first of the attorney's fees and all other costs out of the proceeds of the judgment, and the balance to be applied to the debts of Prior for which Jones was responsible, and the surplus, if any, to the assignor.

The plaintiff prayed that the defendant might be decreed to pay the attorney's fees and costs on obtaining the judicial mortgage, according to the condition of the assignment; and, also, any balance that might be found due after satisfying the debts for which Jones was responsible.

The defendant, amount other defences, set up a former suit in bar.

A previous bill had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking to foreclose this judicial mortgage, in which the same title as in this case under the execution and sale against Prior was relied on. And among other defences to that suit, the defendant set up the assignment of the mortgage by Prior to Jones previous to the said sale on execution, and by Jones to the defendant.

This right of the plaintiff to the judicial mortgage under the sale on execution, and of the defendant under the assignments, were directly involved in that suit, and presented the principal questions in the case. The validity of the assignments over the claim of the plaintiff was maintained by the judgment of the court below, and which was...