Carnochan v. Christie

24 U.S. 446, 6 L. Ed. 516, 11 Wheat. 446, 1826 U.S. LEXIS 329
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 21, 1826
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 24 U.S. 446 (Carnochan v. Christie) 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
Carnochan v. Christie, 24 U.S. 446, 6 L. Ed. 516, 11 Wheat. 446, 1826 U.S. LEXIS 329 (1826).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Camochan &- Mitchel, the plaintiffs, were Merchants in Georgia, who had extensive commercial transactions with the defendant, William Christie, a merchant of Liverpool, in the course of which the former became indebted to the latter to a large amount. In 1819, John Camochan, one of the firm of C. & M., visited Englánd, in the expectation of selling immense tracts of land he had purchased in Florida, and, during his residence in that country, his partner, Peter Mitchel, relying, probably, on the sale of lands, continued to draw, heavily on the defendant, W. C., without making correspondent remittances, Carno-. chan being unable to sell his lands, and thus to place funds in the hands of Christie, these bills produced great embarrassments, and frequent communications between the parties, in the course of which Camochan pressed Christie most earnestly to proceed with his acceptances, and promised to secure him by the pledge of his Florida lands, and property in Georgia. At length, deeds of these lands, arid other property, were executed, and the accounts settled between the parties. Ah account was stated, and signed *448 by them, showing a balance of 43,293 pounds, six shillings and four pence sterling, due to Christie, for which sum Carnochan gave the promissory note ^ ^ jyj^ --

Soon after the execution of these deeds, Carnochan returned to Georgia, and considerable payments were made. But, the debt still remaining considerable, the agent of Christie caused the deeds to be recorded, and apprehensions were entertained that he would proceed to sell the property. In June, 1820, Carnochan & Mitchel filed their bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Georgia, alleging that the account was unfairly settled, to the very great injury of the plaintiffs; that it contains many erroneous charges, and omits to give credits to which the plaintiffs are entitled, and that Carnochan was induced to sign it, and to give the note for the amount, in consequence of his situation, which placed him in the power of the defendant. That the deeds also were executed under duress, and consequent imposition. The bill prays that the account may be resettled, that the deeds may be cancelled, and the defendant enjoined from proceeding under them. The injunction was awarded.

The defendant, Christie, filed his answer, denying all the material allegations of the bill.

Numerous exhibits were filed, and several depositions, taken. In'December, 1821, the parties agreed to refer the case to arbiters, and the following submission was entered' on the record :

*449

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

Related

(PC) Turner v. Castillo
E.D. California, 2024
Force v. Brazeau
D. Arizona, 2024
(HC) Barber v. Soto
E.D. California, 2020
O'Neil v. Weld County
D. Colorado, 2020
O'Neil v. Weld County
D. Nevada, 2020
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon
562 F.3d 349 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Crofoot v. Blair Holdings Corp.
119 Cal. App. 2d 156 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Continental Milling & Feed Co. v. Doughnut Corp. of America
48 A.2d 447 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1946)
Mueller v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
259 N.W. 798 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
State Ex Rel. Nyland v. Northern Packing Co.
244 N.W. 31 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1932)
Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co.
264 U.S. 109 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Royal Union Mut. Life Ins. v. Wynn
177 F. 289 (N.D. Georgia, 1910)
Walden v. McKinnon
47 So. 874 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
American Graphophone Co. v. Smith
26 App. D.C. 563 (D.C. Circuit, 1906)
Willfong v. Omaha & St. Louis Railroad
90 N.W. 358 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Stemmer v. Scottish Insurance
49 P. 588 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 U.S. 446, 6 L. Ed. 516, 11 Wheat. 446, 1826 U.S. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnochan-v-christie-scotus-1826.