Andrews v. Thum

First Circuit

Andrews v. Thum

71 F. 763, 18 C.C.A. 308, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1649

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 1896

DocketNo. 89

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 F. 763 (Andrews v. Thum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Thum, 71 F. 763, 18 C.C.A. 308, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1649 (1st Cir. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Whether restitution should be made of money paid in the progress of judicial procedure, where the interests of the parties defendant are or may be diverse, depends, oftentimes, on a question of fact. Perhaps a case might be so plain as to warrant this court in directing restitution in the court below, hut this is not such a case. This application should be m¿de to the circuit court We do not, in the present hearing, pass upon any question [764]*764relating to the merits of such application. The judgment already entered in this cause is amended to read as follows.-, The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill with costs. This court reserves to the defendants, John A. Andrews et ah, liberty to file in the circuit court a petition for restitution of the sum paid by them to the complainants under, the decree of the said circuit court of May 13, 1893, or to adopt other appropriate methods for presenting their claim for restitution, and to proceed thereon as that court may determine.

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

PER CURIAM.

Whether restitution should be made of money paid in the progress of judicial procedure, where the interests of the parties defendant are or may be diverse, depends, oftentimes, on a question of fact. Perhaps a case might be so plain as to warrant this court in directing restitution in the court below, hut this is not such a case. This application should be m¿de to the circuit court We do not, in the present hearing, pass upon any question [764]*764relating to the merits of such application. The judgment already entered in this cause is amended to read as follows.-, The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill with costs. This court reserves to the defendants, John A. Andrews et ah, liberty to file in the circuit court a petition for restitution of the sum paid by them to the complainants under, the decree of the said circuit court of May 13, 1893, or to adopt other appropriate methods for presenting their claim for restitution, and to proceed thereon as that court may determine.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. 763, 18 C.C.A. 308, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-thum-ca1-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack