Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Mr Lee, for the appellees, moved to dismiss the appeal, the same having been taken before a final decree in the case in the circuit court. The appellees filed their bill in the circuit court, on the 21st of November 1825. An injunction was directed on the filing of the bill, which was afterwards in part dissolved. Subsequently the injunction was altogether dissolved, and further proceedings being had in the case, the court, on the 3d day of December 1832, made the following decree. "And now here at this day, to wit, at a court continued and held for the district and county aforesaid, the 3d day of December 1832, came the parties aforesaid, by their solicitors, and this cause having been set for hearing and decree on the bills, answers, demurrer of defendant, exhibits and depositions, as heretofore stated in the proceedings herein, and now coming on to be heard, it is the opinion of the court that the law on the demurrers is for the complainant. It is therefore by the court adjudged and decreed, that the demurrer be overruled. It is further the opinion of the court, that the complainant has fully sustained the charge of usury made by her in her bill against the defendant, in relation to the loan therein stated; for a part of which loan the judgment at law heretofore enjoined by the order of this court in this cause was obtained; and that under the provisions of the third section of the statute to amend the act entitled an act against usury, the defendant is entitled to receive no more than the principal sum by her lent, and is liable to the payment of the costs of this suit. And it appearing to the court, as well from the admissions of the defendant, as from the proof made by the complainant, that of the sum of 2300 dollars, loaned by the defendant under the said usurious contract, the complainant and her intestate have paid the sum of 1350 dollars and 30 cents, leaving of the principal money loaned the sum of 949 dollars and 70 cents unpaid; and the court not being satisfied as to the payment of the further sum of 50 dollars, for which the complainant claims credit, it is thereupon by the court adjudged and decreed, that the injunction heretofore awarded the complainant be perpetual, except as to the said sum of 949 dollars and 70 cents, of which sum the defendant is at liberty to proceed under her judgment for the sum of 890 dollars and 70 cents; and on the complainant's motion, for reasons appearing to the court, this cause is continued for further consideration as to the said sum of 50 dollars, part of the credit claimed by the complainant. "From which decree the defendant prays an appeal to the supreme court of the United States, which is granted, on her giving bond, and security to be approved by one of the judges of this court." The parties after this decree and appeal, went on to take depositions under the authority of the circuit court, which were filed in that court; and, on the 18th of May 1833, the circuit court made the following decree. "And afterwards, to wit, at an United States circuit court of the district of Columbia, continued and held for the county aforesaid, the 18th day of May 1833, the depositions of Richard B. Alexander and Alexander Moore, taken under a commission issued in this case, having been returned and filed, and this cause now coming on for final hearing as to the credit claimed by the complainant for the sum of 50 dollars, her right to which was reserved for consideration by the terms of the decree heretofore pronounced; and it being the opinion of the court that the complainant is, under the proof offered, entitled to the said credit; it is now here by the court decreed, that the injunction heretofore awarded the complainant be perpetual, except as to the sum of 899 dollars and 70 cents, as to which the defendant is at liberty to proceed on her judgment at law; and it is further decreed, that the defendant do pay to the complainant her costs in this suit, to be taxed by the clerk." Mr. Jones, contra.
Judges
  • Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, dismissing the appeal with costs; because the appeal was granted before there was a final decree in the case.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Mr Lee, for the appellees, moved to dismiss the appeal, the same having been taken before a final decree in the case in the circuit court. The appellees filed their bill in the circuit court, on the 21st of November 1825. An injunction was directed on the filing of the bill, which was afterwards in part dissolved. Subsequently the injunction was altogether dissolved, and further proceedings being had in the case, the court, on the 3d day of December 1832, made the following decree. "And now here at this day, to wit, at a court continued and held for the district and county aforesaid, the 3d day of December 1832, came the parties aforesaid, by their solicitors, and this cause having been set for hearing and decree on the bills, answers, demurrer of defendant, exhibits and depositions, as heretofore stated in the proceedings herein, and now coming on to be heard, it is the opinion of the court that the law on the demurrers is for the complainant. It is therefore by the court adjudged and decreed, that the demurrer be overruled. It is further the opinion of the court, that the complainant has fully sustained the charge of usury made by her in her bill against the defendant, in relation to the loan therein stated; for a part of which loan the judgment at law heretofore enjoined by the order of this court in this cause was obtained; and that under the provisions of the third section of the statute to amend the act entitled an act against usury, the defendant is entitled to receive no more than the principal sum by her lent, and is liable to the payment of the costs of this suit. And it appearing to the court, as well from the admissions of the defendant, as from the proof made by the complainant, that of the sum of 2300 dollars, loaned by the defendant under the said usurious contract, the complainant and her intestate have paid the sum of 1350 dollars and 30 cents, leaving of the principal money loaned the sum of 949 dollars and 70 cents unpaid; and the court not being satisfied as to the payment of the further sum of 50 dollars, for which the complainant claims credit, it is thereupon by the court adjudged and decreed, that the injunction heretofore awarded the complainant be perpetual, except as to the said sum of 949 dollars and 70 cents, of which sum the defendant is at liberty to proceed under her judgment for the sum of 890 dollars and 70 cents; and on the complainant's motion, for reasons appearing to the court, this cause is continued for further consideration as to the said sum of 50 dollars, part of the credit claimed by the complainant. "From which decree the defendant prays an appeal to the supreme court of the United States, which is granted, on her giving bond, and security to be approved by one of the judges of this court." The parties after this decree and appeal, went on to take depositions under the authority of the circuit court, which were filed in that court; and, on the 18th of May 1833, the circuit court made the following decree. "And afterwards, to wit, at an United States circuit court of the district of Columbia, continued and held for the county aforesaid, the 18th day of May 1833, the depositions of Richard B. Alexander and Alexander Moore, taken under a commission issued in this case, having been returned and filed, and this cause now coming on for final hearing as to the credit claimed by the complainant for the sum of 50 dollars, her right to which was reserved for consideration by the terms of the decree heretofore pronounced; and it being the opinion of the court that the complainant is, under the proof offered, entitled to the said credit; it is now here by the court decreed, that the injunction heretofore awarded the complainant be perpetual, except as to the sum of 899 dollars and 70 cents, as to which the defendant is at liberty to proceed on her judgment at law; and it is further decreed, that the defendant do pay to the complainant her costs in this suit, to be taxed by the clerk." Mr. Jones, contra.
Judges
  • Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, dismissing the appeal with costs; because the appeal was granted before there was a final decree in the case.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

ELIZA BROWN, APPELLANT v. FRANCES SWANN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF WILLIAM T. SWANN, DECEASED, AND RICHARD B. ALEXANDER.

An appeal to the supreme court does not lie from a decree of the circuit court making an injunction perpetual, and leaving some matters of account open for further consideration, upon which the parties went on to take further proof. The decree perpetuating the injunction, was not a final decree.

APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia.

Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, dismissing the appeal with costs; because the appeal was granted before there was a final decree in the case.

On appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Alexandria. On consideration of the motion made in this cause yesterday, by Mr Edmund J. Lee of counsel for the appellees to dismiss this cause, because the appeal was granted before there was a final decree rendered in the court below, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon, had as well for the appellant as for the appellees: it is now here ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

BROWN v. SWANN
(Jan 1, 1835)