Samuel Verden, Plaintiff In Error v. Isaac Coleman

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCAMPBELL
Citation15 L.Ed. 272,18 How. 86,59 U.S. 86
PartiesSAMUEL VERDEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ISAAC COLEMAN
Decision Date01 December 1855

59 U.S. 86
18 How. 86
15 L.Ed. 272
SAMUEL VERDEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ISAAC COLEMAN.
December Term, 1855

THIS case was brought up from the supreme court of Indiana, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.

The case is explained in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Gillett, for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for Coleman.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff filed his bill in the circuit court of Benton county, Indiana, sitting in chancery, to obtain a decree to cancel a mortgage and the mortgage note, and also to restrain, by injunction, the mortgagee from proceeding upon the power of sale contained in the mortgage until the final hearing, and from thence perpetually.

A temporary injunction was granted in vacation upon the usual conditions, which was dissolved, on the coming in of the answers upon the motion of the defendants, by the circuit court.

From the order dissolving the injunction there was an appeal to the supreme court of Indiana, where, after argument, the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. Upon this decree this writ of error is prosecuted.

This court has repeatedly decided that a decree upon a motion to dissolve an injunction in the course of a chancery cause, and where the bill is not finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be re examined in this court, under the terms of the 25th section of the judiciary act of the 24th September, 1789. McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448.

The writ of error is dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Mo. Dist. Telegraph Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 34562.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 18, 1936
    ...1, Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 581; Murray v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 272, 15 L. Ed. 272. (5) In actions for contribution by one judgment defendant against the other the prior judgment is not conclusive of anything whatsoever. (a) The......
  • Brannan v. Harrison, No. 169
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1931
    ...L. Ed. 138; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420, 16 L. Ed. 740; Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 19, 38 S. Ct. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86, 15 L. Ed. 272; Moses v. The Mayor, 15 Wall. 387, 21 L. Ed. 176....
  • Norton v. Hood
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • May 1, 1882
    ...orders of the court therein are not appealable. Thomas v. Wooldrige, 23 Wall. 288; Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86; Moses v. The Mayor, 15 Wall. 390. Of course, the whole contention in this case is whether the decree appealed from is final. There can be no claim......
  • Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Walker, 578.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 20, 1895
    ...or decree from which an appeal will lie. Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283, 288; Moses v. Mayor, 15 Wall. 387, 390; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86; McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore sustained. ...
4 cases
  • Mo. Dist. Telegraph Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 34562.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 18, 1936
    ...1, Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 581; Murray v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 272, 15 L. Ed. 272. (5) In actions for contribution by one judgment defendant against the other the prior judgment is not conclusive of anything whatsoever. (a) The......
  • Brannan v. Harrison, No. 169
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1931
    ...L. Ed. 138; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420, 16 L. Ed. 740; Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 19, 38 S. Ct. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86, 15 L. Ed. 272; Moses v. The Mayor, 15 Wall. 387, 21 L. Ed. 176....
  • Norton v. Hood
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • May 1, 1882
    ...orders of the court therein are not appealable. Thomas v. Wooldrige, 23 Wall. 288; Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86; Moses v. The Mayor, 15 Wall. 390. Of course, the whole contention in this case is whether the decree appealed from is final. There can be no claim......
  • Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Walker, 578.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 20, 1895
    ...or decree from which an appeal will lie. Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283, 288; Moses v. Mayor, 15 Wall. 387, 390; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86; McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore sustained. ...

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