Banert v. Eckert

U.S. Circuit Court

Banert v. Eckert

2 F. Cas. 584, 4 Wash. C. C. 325

DecidedOctober 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. Cas. 584 (Banert v. Eckert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banert v. Eckert, 2 F. Cas. 584, 4 Wash. C. C. 325 (uscirct 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court The award, in this case, not having been under a reference by order of court, the agreement to refer can be considered only in the light of a private agreement of the parties, to be enforced by suit at law or in equity, as either may be best adapted to the case. Should either party refuse to comply with the award, he would commit no contempt of the court. The practice of the state courts,—[Kunckle v. Kunckle,] 1 Dall. [1 U. S.] 364,—by which awards like the present are enforced, grows out of the necessity of the case, produced by the want of a court of equity. But the same necessity does not exist as to questions depending in this court. It is of great consequence to the due administration of justice, that the line of demarcation between the law and the equity side of the courts of the United States should be constantly kept in view. Should we open the door of the former to applications like the present, we might as well shut that of the latter. Rule discharged.

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

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court The award, in this case, not having been under a reference by order of court, the agreement to refer can be considered only in the light of a private agreement of the parties, to be enforced by suit at law or in equity, as either may be best adapted to the case. Should either party refuse to comply with the award, he would commit no contempt of the court. The practice of the state courts,—[Kunckle v. Kunckle,] 1 Dall. [1 U. S.] 364,—by which awards like the present are enforced, grows out of the necessity of the case, produced by the want of a court of equity. But the same necessity does not exist as to questions depending in this court. It is of great consequence to the due administration of justice, that the line of demarcation between the law and the equity side of the courts of the United States should be constantly kept in view. Should we open the door of the former to applications like the present, we might as well shut that of the latter. Rule discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 584, 4 Wash. C. C. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banert-v-eckert-uscirct-1822.