Wakelee v. Davis
| Decision Date | 07 January 1891 |
| Citation | 44 F. 532 |
| Parties | WAKELEE v. DAVIS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Anson Maltby, for complainant.
Henry A. Root and Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for defendant.
This bill is filed in aid of an action at law, which the complainant alleges she is about to commence, upon a judgment recovered against the defendant in a state court of California on the 18th of November, 1873. Under the decision of the supreme court in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S 714, this judgment was void, the summons having been served by publication only, in an action in personam. On the 6th of March, 1877, the defendant obtained a discharge in bankruptcy from the United States court for the district of California he having been adjudged a bankrupt by said court September 30, 1869. This discharge, if there were no estoppel, would be a bar to the debt represented by the judgment. Boynton v Ball, 121 U.S. 457, 7 S.Ct. 981.
The complainant contends that the defendant is estopped from denying the validity of the judgment and from relying upon the discharge as a defense, because in 1876, in the bankruptcy court, he obtained substantial benefits by contending that the judgment was valid and would not be barred by a discharge. The complainant insists that he should be held to the same position now, and prays for an injunction restraining him from asserting the invalidity of the judgment and from relying upon his discharge as a defense thereto. The cause has been twice before this court upon demurrer. 37 F. 280; 38 F. 878. The facts sufficiently appear in these decisions, and need not be stated again. On the last demurrer the present bill was sustained. The court there decided the following propositions: First. That the bill stated a cause of equitable cognizance. Second. That, having affirmed the validity of the judgment in the proceedings in bankruptcy the defendant is now estopped to impeach it. Third, that if the defendant pleads his discharge in the action at law about to be commenced, the plaintiff can avail herself of the facts constituting the estoppel, and, upon this branch of the case, is not in need of the assistance of a court of equity. The propositions of law presented are the same now as on demurrer. Some testimony has been taken pro and con, but, upon all important questions, it is substantially conceded that the legal aspects of the cause remain unchanged. It is true that in deciding the issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
...v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co., 6 Fed. Cas. 72; Oglesby v. Attrill, 14 F. 214; Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 33 F. 354; Wakelee v. Davis, 44 F. 532; Shreve Cheesman, 69 F. 785; Plattner Implement Co. v. International Harvester Co., 133 F. 376; State ex rel. v. Buckner, 207 Mo.App. ......
-
State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Martin
...of decision and harmony of action." Oglesby v. Attrill, 4 Woods 114, 14 F. 214; Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 33 F. 354; Wakelee v. Davis, 44 F. 532. ¶63 Thus is stated the rule of comity and of necessity. And it is said further:"But the rule itself, and a careful observance of it, ar......
-
TOY NAT. BANK OF SIOUX CITY v. Smith
...qualified to sit at the trials, and are frequently called upon to act in the same cases." In the early and oft-cited case of Wakelee v. Davis (C. C.) 44 F. 532, 533, the court states that the ruling upon the proposition of law presented upon demurrer "is the law of this court, to be followe......
-
Hardy v. North Butte Mining Co.
...Brewer in Reynolds v. Iron Silver Min. Co. (C. C.) 33 F. 354. To the same effect see Oglesby v. Attrill (C. C.) 14 F. 214; Wakelee v. Davis (C. C.) 44 F. 532; Taylor v. Decatur Mineral & Land Co. (C. C.) 112 F. 449; Plattner Implement Co. v. International Harvester Co. (C. C. A.) 133 F. 376......