Supreme Court of the United States — appointed by James Monroe
United States v. Linn
Supreme Court of the United States · 1843-01-26 · cited 27×
The case concerned an action by the United States to recover on a $100,000 bond executed by William Linn as receiver of public moneys and his sureties, including Joseph Duncan, to secure faithful performance of Linn's duties. The defendants contested liability on grounds that seals were added to the instrument after they signed it and without their consent, which they claimed materially altered and vitiated the document. The Circuit Court ruled for the defendants on a demurrer and jury verdict, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the special plea alleging the alteration was sufficient to bar recovery against Duncan, the second and third counts were defective and required further proceedings on remand.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Hobson v. Heirs of McArthur
Supreme Court of the United States · 1842-03-18 · cited 29×
This case involved a dispute over enforcement of a 1810 contract between Duncan McArthur and the Hobsons concerning relocation of 10,000 acres of land warrants originally entered by Elias Langham, valuation of the lands by appointed appraisers (with a third appraiser if needed), and conveyance of portions of the relocated lands to satisfy the Hobsons' interests plus an additional $2,000 value. The complainant, as assignee of one Hobson's rights, sought specific performance after appraisers valued the lands, but only two of the three agreed on the relocated entries. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decree ordering transfer of all rights in the 10,000 acres, holding that the valuation process did not comply with the contract, there was no evidence supporting assumptions about payments received, and the bill was not framed to justify the relief granted under either specific or general prayers.
propertyprocedure
Long v. Palmer, Smith, & Co.
Supreme Court of the United States · 1842-02-18 · cited 2×
The case involved creditors suing a sheriff for the escape of a debtor prisoner who had been taken into custody under an execution for a judgment debt. The lower court entered judgment against the sheriff after a jury verdict, and the Supreme Court affirmed on writ of error. The Court held that the jury's finding that the sheriff owed the debt in the manner and form alleged in the declaration was sufficient to satisfy a Mississippi statute requiring an express finding that the escape occurred with the sheriff's consent or through his negligence, as permitting the escape amounted to consent. The statute's proviso for escapes from execution fixed the measure of recovery and took the case outside the general enacting clause, but the jury's verdict met the necessary elements under either provision.
proceduretorts & liability
Tompkins v. Wheeler
Supreme Court of the United States · 1842-02-15 · cited 48×
This case involved a creditor's equity bill in federal circuit court seeking to set aside a deed of assignment executed by debtor Leonard Wheeler that conveyed property to certain preferred creditors while excluding the complainant. The complainant alleged the deed was fraudulent because it lacked creditor assent or delivery, retained possession with the debtor, and was timed to hinder collection on judgments. The court found the answers of the parties fully denied the fraud charges, with no supporting evidence, and determined that delivery of the deed to the clerk for recording constituted valid delivery to the grantees and that the debtor's continued possession and management of the assets occurred with the creditors' consent and for their benefit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decree dismissing the bill without prejudice.
property
Groves v. Slaughter
Supreme Court of the United States · 1841-03-10 · cited 94×
The case concerned a lawsuit to enforce a promissory note given in payment for slaves imported into Mississippi as merchandise in 1835-1836, after the state's 1832 constitution took effect to prohibit such importation after May 1833. The buyers defended on the ground that the note was void for illegal consideration under the state constitutional provision. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the seller, holding that the constitutional clause was not self-executing and did not by itself invalidate the contract or render the consideration unlawful without implementing legislation; the Court further concluded that federal power over interstate commerce precluded the state from disrupting the transaction in this way. Dissenting justices would have held the note void under the state constitution.
federal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory
United States v. Linn
Supreme Court of the United States · 1841-02-22 · cited 75×
This case from the Circuit Court of the United States for Illinois concerned the validity of an unsealed written instrument executed to secure the faithful performance of duties by a Receiver of Public Moneys appointed under federal law. The Supreme Court decided that the instrument was not a bond within the meaning of the act of Congress because it lacked a seal, but that it remained valid and binding at common law. The Court reasoned that the United States has capacity as a body politic to enter into voluntary contracts for lawful purposes on sufficient consideration, even if not in the exact form prescribed by statute, so long as the contract is not prohibited by law, citing precedents such as United States v. Tingey and United States v. Bradley. It further held that the mere absence of a seal did not render the instrument void under principles of public policy or the statute's intent.
federal power