Harrell v. Beall

Supreme Court

Harrell v. Beall

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

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 24, 1873·Published·Cited by 12 cases

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.

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

Pincite

84 U.S. 590 (Harrell v. Beall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.