The Bank of Columbia v. George Sweeny
| Decision Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Citation | 7 L.Ed. 265,1 Pet. 567,26 U.S. 567 |
| Parties | THE BANK OF COLUMBIA v. GEORGE SWEENY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Jones and Key, moved the Court for a mandamus to be directed to the Circuit Court of the United States, for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia; commanding them to have a certain issue joined, which issue had been tendered in a proceeding in that Court against George Sweeny, and in which the Bank of Columbia were plaintiffs. George Sweeny being indebted to the Bank of Columbia, upon a promissory note, the President of the bank, in conformity with the provisions of the statute of Maryland, incorporating the bank, passed in 1793, (Acts of 1793, vol. 20,) instituted proceedings in the Circuit Court, under which, by virtue of a capias ad respondendum, he was arrested by the marshal; and he applied to the Court to be allowed, under the authority of the 14th section of the Act incorporating the bank, to 'dispute' the debt claimed by the bank.
The Court thereupon ordered an issue to be joined, and the attorney of the bank being directed to draw a declaration, offered one tendering an issue upon the allegation that the debt mentioned in the execution was due. To this issue the attorney for the defendant objected, and he claimed the right to put in issue the plea of the statute of limitations. The Circuit Court held, that the defendant was entitled to avail himself of the statute, and that the attorney of the bank should file a declaration, in the common form on the promissory note mentioned in the execution, to which the defendant might plead the statute of limitations, as running from the time of payment mentioned in the note; and that the bank should reply, so as to make up the issue under the statute of limitations. The Court refused to make up the issue offered by the bank, or to make up the issue in any other way than as stated.
The plaintiffs claimed, and by this motion sought to maintain their claim, to have an issue joined as offered by the bank, upon the debts being due, as provided in the statute.
The following are the provisions of the 14th section of the charter, upon whcih the proceedings were had, and by which the plaintiffs insisted they had a right to the proceedings they had adopted.——
'And, whereas it is absolutely necessary that debts due to the said bank should be punctually paid, to enable the directors to calculate with certainty and precision on meeting the demands that may be made upon them, Be it enacted, that whenever any person or persons are indebted to the said bank for moneys borrowed by them, or for bonds, bills or notes, given or endorsed by them, with an express consent in writing that they may be made negotiable at the said bank, and shall refuse or neglect to make payment at the time the same becomes due, the President shall cause a demand in writing on the person of the said delinquent or delinquents, having consented as aforesaid, or if not to be found, have the same left at his place of abode; and if the money so due shall not be paid within ten days after such demand made, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Wilson
...The Court has long given this provision of the statute this practical rather than a technical construction. Bank of Columbia v. Sweeney, 1 Pet., 567, 569, 7 L.Ed. 265, United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U.S. 411, 414, 46 S.Ct. 144, 145, 70 L.Ed. 339; Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S.......
-
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
...below, so that the same cause might come before this Court many times, before there would be a final judgment.' Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567, 569, 7 L.Ed. 265. See, also, Life & Fire Insurance Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 573, 602, 9 L.Ed. 234; Ex parte Hoard, 105 U.S. 578, 579, 580, 26 L......
-
In re Volkswagen of America, Inc.
...the provision of the Act of Congress, that final judgments only should be brought before this Court for re-examination." 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 567, 569, 7 L.Ed. 265 (1828) (emphasis in original). As the majority opinion seems to recognize, but then ignores, the Supreme Court has been explicit on......
-
Will v. United States
...82 S.Ct. 671 (1962); Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 520—521, 76 S.Ct. 912, 917, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956); Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567, 569, 7 L.Ed. 265 (1828). Nor is the case against permitting the writ to be used as a substitute for interlocutory appeal 'made less compelling......