Dowell v. Mitchell

Supreme Court

Dowell v. Mitchell

105 U.S. 430, 26 L. Ed. 1142, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2144

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 18, 1882

Docket467

StatusPublished

Cited by40 cases

This text of 105 U.S. 430 (Dowell v. Mitchell) 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

Dowell v. Mitchell, 105 U.S. 430, 26 L. Ed. 1142, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2144 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

*432 Me. Justice Woods,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of .the court.

Without going into a discussion of the evidence on the subject, wft declare pur opinion to be that the Circuit Court was right'in holding that the title to the property described in the mortgage executed by Brazell in the name of the late firm of Barron & Brazell-had never been either in the late firm or in Brazell, but was in Barron, the deceased member of the firm, at the time of his death, arid that at the date of the mortgage the title of .the mortgaged, premises was in -his heirs.

When this fact was established by the evidence, the court below, sitting as a court of equity, had np jurisdiction to proceed in the cause. -There was nothing on which it could act but- the' protnissory notes, and to enforce their payment the complainant's had a plain, adequate, and- complete remedy at law.

The rule is that where a eause of action cognizable at law is entertained in equity on the ground, of sorñe equitable relief sought by the bill, which it turns out cannot-, for defect of proof or other reason, be granted, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed further, and should dismiss the bill without prejudice. Russell v. Clarke, 7 Cranch, 69; Price's Patent Candle Co. v. Bauwen's Patent Candle Co., 4 Kay & J. 727; Bailey v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & M. 73; French v. Howard, 3 Bibb (Ky.), 301; Robinson v. Gilbreth, 4 id. 183; Nourse v. Gregory, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 378.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice to an action at law on the notes which the invalid mortgage purported to secure ; and it is

So ordered.

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

*432 Me. Justice Woods,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of .the court.

Without going into a discussion of the evidence on the subject, wft declare pur opinion to be that the Circuit Court was right'in holding that the title to the property described in the mortgage executed by Brazell in the name of the late firm of Barron & Brazell-had never been either in the late firm or in Brazell, but was in Barron, the deceased member of the firm, at the time of his death, arid that at the date of the mortgage the title of .the mortgaged, premises was in -his heirs.

When this fact was established by the evidence, the court below, sitting as a court of equity, had np jurisdiction to proceed in the cause. -There was nothing on which it could act but- the' protnissory notes, and to enforce their payment the complainant's had a plain, adequate, and- complete remedy at law.

The rule is that where a eause of action cognizable at law is entertained in equity on the ground, of sorñe equitable relief sought by the bill, which it turns out cannot-, for defect of proof or other reason, be granted, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed further, and should dismiss the bill without prejudice. Russell v. Clarke, 7 Cranch, 69; Price's Patent Candle Co. v. Bauwen's Patent Candle Co., 4 Kay & J. 727; Bailey v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & M. 73; French v. Howard, 3 Bibb (Ky.), 301; Robinson v. Gilbreth, 4 id. 183; Nourse v. Gregory, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 378.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice to an action at law on the notes which the invalid mortgage purported to secure ; and it is

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 U.S. 430, 26 L. Ed. 1142, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowell-v-mitchell-scotus-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack