Riddle v. Hudgins
| Decision Date | 16 October 1893 |
| Docket Number | 263. |
| Citation | 58 F. 490 |
| Parties | RIDDLE v. HUDGINS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Statement by CALDWELL, Circuit Judge:
This suit grows out of the following state of facts: Joseph G Hudgins and Holder Hudgins, white men, and partners in trade under the firm name of Hudgins & Bro., residing and doing business at Dallas, in Polk county, Ark., there sold and delivered to Blackstone Nichols, a Choctaw Indian, between the years 1882 and 1886, 950 head of cattle, and some other property which need not be specifically mentioned. The cattle were sold and delivered in lots at different times, and as each lot was sold and delivered Hudgins & Bro. executed to the purchaser a written bill of sale for the same, in which the receipt of the purchase money was acknowledged. The cattle, however, were not in fact paid for, but were purchased on a credit upon an express verbal agreement between Hudgins & Bro. and Nichols that they should have a lien on the cattle and their increase to secure the payment of the purchase money as well as some other indebtedness due to them from Nichols. The purchaser, Nichols, removed the cattle from Arkansas to the Choctaw Nation in the Indian Territory, where he died on the 20th of January, 1889, owing Hudgins & Bro. $9,017.51, all of which indebtedness, under the contract and agreement between the parties, was a lien on the cattle, and their increase, so sold to Nichols. At the time of Nichols' death he still owned and had in his possession more than 500 head of the cattle purchased from Hudgins & Bro. After Nichols' death, Dauf Riddle was appointed administrator of his estate by the probate court of the Choctaw Nation, and qualified as such, and thereupon, as such administrator, took possession of all the intestate's property, and refused to pay the debt due to Hudgins & Bro., or to deliver to them the property upon which they had a lien, and refused to recognize the validity of the lien. Hudgins & Bro. thereupon filed this bill in the United States court in the Indian Territory against Riddle, as administrator of Nichols' estate, setting out in substance the foregoing facts, and others wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case, and therefore not material to be stated, and praying that an attachment issue to seize and hold the cattle and other property, and that the court would decree that they have a lien thereon for $9,017.51, the sum due them from Nichols, and that the property be sold to satisfy the same. The answer denied any knowledge of the indebtedness of the intestate to the plaintiff, or of the agreement for a lien on the cattle and other property to secure such indebtedness; alleged that the defendant had been duly appointed administrator of the estate of Nichols by the proper probate court of the Choctaw Nation, and had duly qualified as such, and had as such administrator taken the property mentioned in the bill into his possession, and claimed the right to administer the same according to the laws of the Choctaw Nation, and denied that he had done or contemplated doing any act that would authorize an attachment of the property. Subsequently the defendant filed a motion to quash the attachment upon various grounds, which motion was sustained, from which ruling the plaintiffs prayed an appeal to the supreme court of the United States, which was allowed. A portion of the property had been sold by order of the court, made in pursuance to a stipulation of the parties, and the proceeds of the sale, amounting to $1,171.77, was by order of the court paid to one of the defendant's attorneys. The remainder of the property was turned over to the defendant, who was enjoined from disposing of the same until the further order of the court in the premises. The case was referred to a master, who, after taking testimony made a report. The master found there was due from the estate of Nichols to the plaintiffs the sum of $9,017.51, and that to secure the payment of this sum a lien was created by express agreement between the plaintiffs and Nichols upon the property mentioned in the bill, which the plaintiffs were entitled to have foreclosed in this suit. The master reported on several other matters injected into the case by averments in the bill and answer; but, as those matters have no relation whatever to the merits of the case, they need not be noticed. Exceptions were taken by the defendant to the master's report, which were overruled, and the report confirmed, and a final decree rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of their debt, to secure the payment of which it was found, and decreed that the plaintiffs had a lien on the property, which was ordered to be sold to satisfy the debt. From this decree the defendant appealed to this court.
W. H H. Clayton, James Brizzolara, and James B. Forrester, for appellant.
William M. Cravens, for appellees.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.
CALDWELL Circuit Judge, after stating the facts as above, .
Upon the evidence in the case it is indisputable that the intestate, Nichols, at the time of his death owed the plaintiffs the amount stated in the master's report, and that by an express agreement between the plaintiffs and Nichols they had a lien on the cattle and other property mentioned in the bill to secure the payment of that indebtedness. The lien, which was created by agreement of the parties in this case, is called an 'equitable lien' or an 'equitable mortgage.' It is said equitable liens by contract of the parties are as various as are the contracts which parties may make. 1 Jones, Liens, § 27. Such liens do not depend upon the possession of the property by the creditor, as do liens at law. Nor do they depend upon any statute for their force and efficacy, and they are not affected by the registration laws. They are founded upon the contract of the parties, which may be either verbal or in writing, and they will be enforced in equity against the party himself and his personal representatives, heirs voluntary assignees, and purchasers with notice. Id. §§ 28, 30, 93; Fletcher v. Morey, 2 Story, 555, 565; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1235; Gregory v. Morris, 96 U.S. 619; Hauselt v. Harrison, 105 U.S. 401; Pinch v. Anthony, 8 Allen, 536; Tied. Eq. Jur. §§ 384, 385. The law gives no remedy by which such liens can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veazey v. City of Durham, 743
...20 S.D. 359, 106 N.W. 138. Judge Nimocks could not breathe the breath of life into the nostrils of this legal corpse. Riddle v. Hudgins, 8 Cir., 58 F. 490, 7 C.C.A. 335. If he had undertaken to confer upon the defendant a right of appeal which was denied to it by the law, his action would h......
-
United States v. Broude
... ... 194; La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95, 112, ... 113, 28 Sup.Ct. 664, 52 L.Ed. 973; Robinson v. Belt ... (C.C.A. 8) 56 F. 328, 5 C.C.A. 521; Riddle v ... Hudgins (C.C.A. 8) 58 F. 490, 7 C.C.A. 335; Gunn v ... Black (C.C.A. 8) 60 F. 159, 160, 8 C.C.A ... [299 F. 334] ... 542; ... ...
-
U.S. v. Grabinski, 81-1812
...notice of appeal from the denial of his or her motion to dismiss should not divest the district court of jurisdiction. See Riddle v. Hudgins, 58 F. 490 (8th Cir. 1893); United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 691 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc) (notice of appeal from a nonappealable order does n......
-
Fee-Crayton Hardwood Co. v. Richardson-Warren Co.
...state where the court sits. Justice Story, in Fletcher v. Morey (Fed. Cas. No. 4,864, supra, and cases there cited. "In Riddle v. Hudgins 58 F. 490, supra, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, passing on an express verbal agreement to give a lien, said, as already quoted: `N......