Johnson v. Harmon

Supreme Court

Johnson v. Harmon

94 U.S. 371, 24 L. Ed. 271, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1873

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 18, 1877

Docket212

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 94 U.S. 371 (Johnson v. Harmon) 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

Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U.S. 371, 24 L. Ed. 271, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1873 (1877).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in equity, involving, amongst other questions, the validity of a trust deed given by the complainant (the appellee here) to secure certain notes. The complainant charges' in his bill that he was so intoxicated when he executed the deed and notes as to be incapable of understanding what he was doing. The court below, after considerable testimony had been taken, directed an issue to- try the question whether the complainant, at the time of the execution of the deed of tiust and notes, was capable of executing a valid deed or contract. The issue so directed was tried, and resulted in a verdict for the complainant; namely, that' he was not capable of executing a Valid deed or contract. The defendants took a. bill of exceptions to the charge given by the judge who tried the issue, which was allowed, and signed by him. The. cause afterwards [372]*372came on to be heard upon the exceptions, and they were overruled. Subsequently a final hearing was had upon the pleadings, evidence, and verdict, and a decree was rendered for the complainant, directing the trust deed and notes in question to be vacated and set aside. From that decree this appeal was taken, and the only errors - assigned are to the charge given by the judge to the jury on the trial of the feigned issue.

This is totally inadmissible. A bill of exceptions cannot be taken on the trial of a feigned issue directed by a court of equity, or, if taken, can only be used on a motion for a new-trial made to said court. 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 1106; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 3 Myl. & K. 52; Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 343. See the cases on new trials on feigned issues collected in 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 1553, &c. The issue is directed to be tried for the prirpose of informing the conscience of the Chancellor, and aiding him to come to a proper conclusion. If he thinks the' trial has not been a fair one, or for any other reason desires a new trial, it is in his discretion to order it. But he may proceed with the cause though dissatisfied with the verdict, and make a decree contrary thereto, if in his judgment the law and the evidence so requires. A decree in equity, therefore, when appealed from, does not stand or fall according to the legality or illegality of the proceedings on the trial of a feigned issue in the cause; for the verdict may or may not have been the ground of the decree. It is the duty of the court of first instance to decide (as was done here) upon the whole case, pleadings, evidence, and verdict, giving to the latter so much effect as it is worth. An appeal from the decree must be decided in the same way, namely, upon the whole case, and cannot be made to turn on the correctness or incorrectness of the judge’s rulings at the trial of the feigned issue.

Decree affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in equity, involving, amongst other questions, the validity of a trust deed given by the complainant (the appellee here) to secure certain notes. The complainant charges' in his bill that he was so intoxicated when he executed the deed and notes as to be incapable of understanding what he was doing. The court below, after considerable testimony had been taken, directed an issue to- try the question whether the complainant, at the time of the execution of the deed of tiust and notes, was capable of executing a valid deed or contract. The issue so directed was tried, and resulted in a verdict for the complainant; namely, that' he was not capable of executing a Valid deed or contract. The defendants took a. bill of exceptions to the charge given by the judge who tried the issue, which was allowed, and signed by him. The. cause afterwards [372]*372came on to be heard upon the exceptions, and they were overruled. Subsequently a final hearing was had upon the pleadings, evidence, and verdict, and a decree was rendered for the complainant, directing the trust deed and notes in question to be vacated and set aside. From that decree this appeal was taken, and the only errors - assigned are to the charge given by the judge to the jury on the trial of the feigned issue.

This is totally inadmissible. A bill of exceptions cannot be taken on the trial of a feigned issue directed by a court of equity, or, if taken, can only be used on a motion for a new-trial made to said court. 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 1106; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 3 Myl. & K. 52; Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 343. See the cases on new trials on feigned issues collected in 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 1553, &c. The issue is directed to be tried for the prirpose of informing the conscience of the Chancellor, and aiding him to come to a proper conclusion. If he thinks the' trial has not been a fair one, or for any other reason desires a new trial, it is in his discretion to order it. But he may proceed with the cause though dissatisfied with the verdict, and make a decree contrary thereto, if in his judgment the law and the evidence so requires. A decree in equity, therefore, when appealed from, does not stand or fall according to the legality or illegality of the proceedings on the trial of a feigned issue in the cause; for the verdict may or may not have been the ground of the decree. It is the duty of the court of first instance to decide (as was done here) upon the whole case, pleadings, evidence, and verdict, giving to the latter so much effect as it is worth. An appeal from the decree must be decided in the same way, namely, upon the whole case, and cannot be made to turn on the correctness or incorrectness of the judge’s rulings at the trial of the feigned issue.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 U.S. 371, 24 L. Ed. 271, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-harmon-scotus-1877.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack