Rosewell Messinger v. Peter Anderson, No. 150

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation32 S.Ct. 739,225 U.S. 436,56 L.Ed. 1152
Decision Date07 June 1912
Docket NumberNo. 150
PartiesROSEWELL E. MESSINGER, Petitioner, v. PETER ANDERSON

225 U.S. 436
32 S.Ct. 739
56 L.Ed. 1152
ROSEWELL E. MESSINGER, Petitioner,

v.

PETER ANDERSON.

No. 150.
Argued January 19 and 22, 1912.
Decided June 7, 1912.

Page 437

Messrs. Harry E. King, Clayton W. Everett, and Oliver B. Snider for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 437-440 intentionally omitted]

Page 440

Messrs. Rhea P. Cary and C. H. Trimble for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from Page 440 intentionally omitted]

Page 441

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action of ejectment for land in Toledo, Ohio,

Page 442

brought by the respondent, Anderson. The case went three times to the circuit court of appeals, and ended in a judgment for the plaintiff. 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1094, 77 C. C. A. 179, 146 Fed. 929; 85 C. C. A. 468, 158 Fed. 250; 96 C. C. A. 445, 171 Fed. 785. The facts that need to be stated are these: In 1841 Charles Butler assigned an overdue mortgage of the land to Henry Anderson as security for a note of his own. He made default, Anderson brought a bill to foreclose (Butler not being served with process), got a decree, bought in, and got the sale confirmed. For the purposes of this decision it may be assumed that Anderson got the land in fee simple, subject to some question as to Butler's rights. The plaintiff below, the respondent here, claimed as remainderman under the will of Henry Anderson, who was his grandfather. The petitioner claims under a conveyance from Butler. If the plaintiff's title is bad, that is an end of the case.

In 1846 Henry Anderson, then domiciled in Mississippi, made his will and died, leaving two sons, William and James. These sons executed deeds declaring that their father, Henry, held and intended to hold the land in trust to secure the payment of Butler's note, and Butler subsequently made such payments on the same that it may be assumed that unless the plaintiff has a title that his father, James, could not affect by the above-mentioned deed, he has none. Whether he has such a title depends on the terms of Henry's will. That instrument, after creating a general trust of substantially all the testator's property, went on thus: 'Item. It is my will that when my son William arrives at the age of twenty-one years the trustees . . . shall deliver to him a settlement of the affairs of the trust, and if my debts are then paid, and as soon as that takes place, they shall put him in possession of one half of my property, reserving thereout two-fifth parts of said moiety, by valuation, which my said trustees shall hold in trust and properly invest and pay over to

Page 443

him at the age of twenty-five years. . . . And it is my will that my said trustees hold and invest and pay over the remaining moiety of my estate to my son James at the respective periods of twenty-one and twenty-five years of age, being governed as to the amounts to be paid at each of the respective periods by the same rules and directions as are above laid down in the bequest to William,' etc.

If these clauses were all, there would be no doubt that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
817 practice notes
  • Windbourne v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., No. 76 C 237
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • May 11, 1979
    ...Food Div., 327 F.2d 944, 953 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 1338, 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964). See Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed.2d 1152 (1912); Higgins v. Calif. Prune & Apricot Grower, Inc., 3 F.2d 896, 898 (2d Cir. 1924); Perma Research & Deve......
  • Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, No. Civ.A. 3:98cv309.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • July 16, 1999
    ...then, the "law of the case" doctrine cannot be said to preclude consideration of the Plaintiffs' standing. See Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (Holmes, J.) (law of the case doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to ......
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...is brought here for review. Zeckendorf v. Steinfeld, 225 U.S. 445, 454, 32 S.Ct. 728, 732, 56 L.Ed. 1156; Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 740, 56 L.Ed. 1152. Even so, we think sound practice would see to it that such questions were expressly preserved in the later st......
  • Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., No. CV-96-5658 (CPS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • August 6, 2007
    ...work a manifest injustice. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (Holmes, J.) (stating that the doctrine expresses a general practice and not a limit on a court's po......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
815 cases
  • Windbourne v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., No. 76 C 237
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • May 11, 1979
    ...Food Div., 327 F.2d 944, 953 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 1338, 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964). See Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed.2d 1152 (1912); Higgins v. Calif. Prune & Apricot Grower, Inc., 3 F.2d 896, 898 (2d Cir. 1924); Perma Research & Deve......
  • Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, No. Civ.A. 3:98cv309.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • July 16, 1999
    ...then, the "law of the case" doctrine cannot be said to preclude consideration of the Plaintiffs' standing. See Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (Holmes, J.) (law of the case doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to ......
  • Urie v. Thompson, No. 129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1949
    ...is brought here for review. Zeckendorf v. Steinfeld, 225 U.S. 445, 454, 32 S.Ct. 728, 732, 56 L.Ed. 1156; Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 740, 56 L.Ed. 1152. Even so, we think sound practice would see to it that such questions were expressly preserved in the later st......
  • Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., No. CV-96-5658 (CPS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • August 6, 2007
    ...work a manifest injustice. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (Holmes, J.) (stating that the doctrine expresses a general practice and not a limit on a court's po......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT