Curtis v. Petitpain

Supreme Court

Curtis v. Petitpain

59 U.S. 109, 15 L. Ed. 280, 18 How. 109, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 672

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 18, 1856

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 U.S. 109 (Curtis v. Petitpain) 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

Curtis v. Petitpain, 59 U.S. 109, 15 L. Ed. 280, 18 How. 109, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 672 (1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice C AMPBELL

delivered the opinion of the court.

The record certified in this cause consists of “ an agreed state *110 ment of facts,” which the parties' submitted to -the court on the rules taken by the plaintiffs against the defendants, and the judgment rendered thereon, anda judgment rendered on amotion for a new trial, being the proceedings after the submission of the case.

‘The case stated is, that the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Victor Feste in the .circuit court of the- United States. That an execution issued thereon, and a seizure was made of immovable as well as movable property; which was sold, and the proceeds held by the marshal.

While these proceedings were pending, Madame Feste recovered, in one of the state courts, a decree against her husband, Victor Feste, for the separation of property and the amount of dowry brought in marriagé; and thereupon served a notice upon the marshal, claiming to have satisfaction of her legal mortgage, in preference to the execution creditor, from the moneys in his hands, and obtained a rule from the court requiring him to answer her claim, The plaintiffs, upon their part, (as the case states,) also obtained a rule, to enforce the payment of the money to them on their execution. To settle these conflicting claims was the object of the agreed case thus submitted to the court.

Two questions arise in limine, either of which is, in our opinion, decisive of this cause: 1st. That this is not such a transcript as will satisfy the 11th and 31st rules Of this court, under the decision of Keene v. Whittaker, 13 Pet. 459; and, 2d, that this is not such a judgment as this court can reexamine, according to the principle of Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530. And we agree with the defendants upon both thése questions.

The cause is dismissed with costs.

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

Mr. Justice C AMPBELL

delivered the opinion of the court.

The record certified in this cause consists of “ an agreed state *110 ment of facts,” which the parties' submitted to -the court on the rules taken by the plaintiffs against the defendants, and the judgment rendered thereon, anda judgment rendered on amotion for a new trial, being the proceedings after the submission of the case.

‘The case stated is, that the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Victor Feste in the .circuit court of the- United States. That an execution issued thereon, and a seizure was made of immovable as well as movable property; which was sold, and the proceeds held by the marshal.

While these proceedings were pending, Madame Feste recovered, in one of the state courts, a decree against her husband, Victor Feste, for the separation of property and the amount of dowry brought in marriagé; and thereupon served a notice upon the marshal, claiming to have satisfaction of her legal mortgage, in preference to the execution creditor, from the moneys in his hands, and obtained a rule from the court requiring him to answer her claim, The plaintiffs, upon their part, (as the case states,) also obtained a rule, to enforce the payment of the money to them on their execution. To settle these conflicting claims was the object of the agreed case thus submitted to the court.

Two questions arise in limine, either of which is, in our opinion, decisive of this cause: 1st. That this is not such a transcript as will satisfy the 11th and 31st rules Of this court, under the decision of Keene v. Whittaker, 13 Pet. 459; and, 2d, that this is not such a judgment as this court can reexamine, according to the principle of Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530. And we agree with the defendants upon both thése questions.

The cause is dismissed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 U.S. 109, 15 L. Ed. 280, 18 How. 109, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-petitpain-scotus-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack