Harrell v. Beall

Supreme Court

Harrell v. Beall

84 U.S. 590, 21 L. Ed. 692, 17 Wall. 590, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1401

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 24, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 84 U.S. 590 (Harrell v. Beall) 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

Harrell v. Beall, 84 U.S. 590, 21 L. Ed. 692, 17 Wall. 590, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1401 (1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justiee MILLER

delivered the opinion of the court*

The appellant has furnished a brief and an oral argument which-have received the attentive consideration of the court. There is no appearance here for the appellee, and this has made us more careful in the examination of the record.

The question is wholly one of-the weight of evidence, involving no controverted proposition of law; and the pressure of business on this court will not justify u§ in reproducing in -our opinion the facts on which our judgments rest in such cases. It must suffice to say that we are-convinced that the sale to Echols was a barefaced fraud, and that if the appellee did -not know it when he purchased ofEchols it was because he intentionally shut his eyes to the truth, and that he had such notice and information as made it his duty to iüquiré further, and that the slightest effort by him in that direction would have discovered the whole fraud.

Such were the views on which the decree below was fqunded,-and it is accordingly

Affirmed.

Dissenting, Mr. Justice DAYIS.

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

Mr. Justiee MILLER

delivered the opinion of the court*

The appellant has furnished a brief and an oral argument which-have received the attentive consideration of the court. There is no appearance here for the appellee, and this has made us more careful in the examination of the record.

The question is wholly one of-the weight of evidence, involving no controverted proposition of law; and the pressure of business on this court will not justify u§ in reproducing in -our opinion the facts on which our judgments rest in such cases. It must suffice to say that we are-convinced that the sale to Echols was a barefaced fraud, and that if the appellee did -not know it when he purchased ofEchols it was because he intentionally shut his eyes to the truth, and that he had such notice and information as made it his duty to iüquiré further, and that the slightest effort by him in that direction would have discovered the whole fraud.

Such were the views on which the decree below was fqunded,-and it is accordingly

Affirmed.

Dissenting, Mr. Justice DAYIS.

23 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1517, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,652 in Re Agricultural Research and Technology Group, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, Debtor. Thomas E. Hayes, Trustee v. Palm Seedlings Partners-A, a Hawaii Limited Partnership Grant-Buskett Management Corporation, Individually and as General Partner of the Partnership Robert B. Grant Ruth M. Jasper, Trustee for the Ruth M. Jasper Revocable Living Trust Florine A. Katz Edwin Y.W. Fong Nancy Foos Jerome O.C.C. Leong Joseph C.C. Leong Lon D. Pierce George A. Reich John F. Smith Myron F. Tethal Marian F. Townsend Nancy R. Weisner and James W. Winters, Individually and as Limited Partners of Said Partnership

916 F.2d 528 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Hayes v. Palm Seedlings Partners-A (In re Agricultural Research & Technology Group, Inc.)

916 F.2d 528 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Sampsell v. Imperial Paper & Color Corp.

313 U.S. 215 (Supreme Court, 1941)

Lumpkin v. Foley

204 F. 372 (Fifth Circuit, 1913)

Wilson v. . Taylor

70 S.E. 286 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)

In re Mullen

101 F. 413 (D. Massachusetts, 1900)

Levis v. Kengla

169 U.S. 234 (Supreme Court, 1898)

Bollmann v. Bollmann

6 S.C. 29 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 U.S. 590, 21 L. Ed. 692, 17 Wall. 590, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-beall-scotus-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack