Albright and Others v. Emery

Supreme Court

Albright and Others v. Emery

109 U.S. 650, 3 S. Ct. 426, 27 L. Ed. 1064, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1740

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 7, 1884

Docket159

StatusPublished

This text of 109 U.S. 650 (Albright and Others v. Emery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albright and Others v. Emery, 109 U.S. 650, 3 S. Ct. 426, 27 L. Ed. 1064, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1740 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatoheord

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a suit in equity brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, by the firm of Langdon, Albright & Company, against Samuel Emery, Senior, and five other persons, *651 that court, in special .term, made a decree setting aside an assigmnent made to two of the defendants, directing tha manner in which receivers in the suit should .distribute a fund in their hands, directing the clerk to pay to the plaintiffs the whole of a fund in the registry .of the court, directing the defendant Emery to pay to the plaintiffs $1,232.37, with interest from July 14th, 1879, adjudging Emery to be indebted to the plaintiffs in the further sum of $14,818.98, with interest from July 20th, 1877, and the defendant Sailer to be liable to them for the same amount, and awarding execution as at law, therefor, against them or either of them. From that decree Emery appealed to that court in general term, in his own behalf, Sailer declining, in open court, to appeal. ' The court in general term made a decree reversing the decree in special term so far as it chargéd Emery, and dismissing the bill as to him. From that decree the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

It is not necessary to consider the question whether the bill, if demurred to, or if the facts alleged in it were sustained by the proofs, would lie, as setting forth a case for the cognizance of a court in equity, because we are of opinion that- the proofs do not establish the allegation^ of the bill, so far as they affect Emery,-in respect to any relief prayed ag'inst him in the bill, or any relief granted against him by the court in special term,, and that no part of the relief contended for in the assignments of error made by the appellants is warranted by the proofs.

The decree of the cüv/rt m general term is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Blatoheord

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a suit in equity brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, by the firm of Langdon, Albright & Company, against Samuel Emery, Senior, and five other persons, *651 that court, in special .term, made a decree setting aside an assigmnent made to two of the defendants, directing tha manner in which receivers in the suit should .distribute a fund in their hands, directing the clerk to pay to the plaintiffs the whole of a fund in the registry .of the court, directing the defendant Emery to pay to the plaintiffs $1,232.37, with interest from July 14th, 1879, adjudging Emery to be indebted to the plaintiffs in the further sum of $14,818.98, with interest from July 20th, 1877, and the defendant Sailer to be liable to them for the same amount, and awarding execution as at law, therefor, against them or either of them. From that decree Emery appealed to that court in general term, in his own behalf, Sailer declining, in open court, to appeal. ' The court in general term made a decree reversing the decree in special term so far as it chargéd Emery, and dismissing the bill as to him. From that decree the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

It is not necessary to consider the question whether the bill, if demurred to, or if the facts alleged in it were sustained by the proofs, would lie, as setting forth a case for the cognizance of a court in equity, because we are of opinion that- the proofs do not establish the allegation^ of the bill, so far as they affect Emery,-in respect to any relief prayed ag'inst him in the bill, or any relief granted against him by the court in special term,, and that no part of the relief contended for in the assignments of error made by the appellants is warranted by the proofs.

The decree of the cüv/rt m general term is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 U.S. 650, 3 S. Ct. 426, 27 L. Ed. 1064, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albright-and-others-v-emery-scotus-1884.