Schwed v. Smith
| Citation | 106 U.S. 188,1 S.Ct. 221,27 L.Ed. 156 |
| Parties | SCHWED and others v. SMITH and others |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1882 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
On the twenty-sixth of January, 1880, Schwed & Newhouse confessed a judgment in the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri, against themselves, and in favor of Henry Heller, for $9,512.50. Execution was at once issued on this judgment, and levied by Bailey, sheriff of the county, on a stock of goods.
On the twelfth of February, 1880, William Smith & Co. had a suit pending in the same court, in their favor, against Schwed & Newhouse for the recovery of $3,829.71, and William C. Greene & Co. another suit for the recovery of $1,012.93. In both the suits attachments were issued and levied on the same goods taken under the execution in favor of Heller, and then in the hands of the sheriff. Smith & Co. and Greene & Co. thereupon began a suit in the same court against Schwed, Newhouse, Heller, and the sheriff, the object of which was to set aside the judgment in favor of Heller on the ground that it was confessed without any consideration, and for the purpose of conering up the property of Schwed & Newhouse, and hindering and delaying creditors in the collection of their debts. This suit was afterwards removed to the circuit court of the United States for the western division of the western district of Missouri. Afterwards judgments were rendered in the attachment suit; that in favor of Smith & Co. being for $4,174.38, and that in favor of Greene & Co. for $1,104.09. In the mean time other creditors of Schwed & Newhouse got attachments and judgments against them, to-wit, the Seth Thomas Clock Company for $1,518.49, the E. N. Welch Manufacturing Company for $455.58, and F. Quayle for $356. The attachments in these cases were also levied on the goods in the hands of the sheriff. All the later attaching creditors were admitted as parties to the original suit begun by Smith & Co. and Greene & Co. to set aside the judgment in favor of Heller, and in proper time a supplemental bill was filed in which all the attaching creditors appeared as complainants, setting up the recovery of their respective judgments. Pending the suit the property levied upon was sold, and the proceeds, being $7,405.55, paid into the registry of the court. At the final hearing a decree was rendered declaring the judgment confessed in favor of Heller void as against the attaching creditors. From this decree Schwed, Newhouse, Heller, and Bailey, the sheriff, took an appeal, which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broderick v. American General Corporation
...legal effect is the same as though separate suits had been begun on each of the separate causes of action." Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188, 190, 1 S. Ct. 221, 222, 27 L. Ed. 156. And, as said in Walter v. Northeastern R. R. Co., supra, "The rule applicable to several plaintiffs having separ......
-
Hackner v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143, 31 U.S. 143, 8 L.Ed. 349; Seaver v. Bigelow, 5 Wall. 208, 72 U.S. 208, 18 L.Ed. 595; Schwed v. Smith, 106 U.S. 188, 1 S.Ct. 221, 27 L.Ed. 156; Clay v. Field, 138 U.S. 464, 479, 480, 11 S.Ct. 419, 34 L.Ed. 1044; Pinel v. Pinel, supra; Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Ka......
-
Feely v. Bryan
... ... deed as fraudulent, and their bill was dismissed, and the ... court said they had separate demands which could not be ... added. In Schwed v. Smith, 106 U.S. 188, 1 S.Ct ... 221, 27 L.Ed. 156, creditors sued to set aside a judgment and ... subject a fund realized by execution under ... ...
-
Davis v. Schwartz
...are joined in one suit for convenience venience or economy, the case will be dismissed as to claims not exceeding $5,000 Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188, 1 Sup. Ct. 221; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543 2 Sup. Ct. 846; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163; Estes v. Gunter, 121 ......
-
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
...(30.) Walter v. Ne. R.R. Co., 147 U.S. 370 (1893). (31.) Mat 373. (32.) Id. (33.) Id. at 374 (emphasis added) (quoting Schwed v. Smith, 106 U.S. 188, 190 (34.) See Rensberger, supra note 6, at 938 & n.90 (noting that "Walter is often criticized as a slipshod extension of the rules of ag......