Medford v. Dorsey

16 F. Cas. 1309, 2 Wash. C. C. 433
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania·Decided April 15, 1810·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice

(PETERS, District Judge, absent).

This judgment, having been entered at a former court, though probably improvidently done, and might have been refused, had it been opposed, until the indemnity was given, cannot now be vacated. If there was error in entering it. the court, at a subsequent term, cannot set it aside, unless it was entered by the misprision of the clerk, by fraud, or the like. It is a hardship upon the defendant, to have his real estate bound by a judgment which it is improbable will ever be enforced; and there is possibly no way to help the defendant, but by entering satisfaction on the judgment, whenever it is made to appear, that the sum awarded has been paid to those against whose claims the defendant was to be indemnified.

Rule discharged.

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

Medford v. Dorsey, 16 F. Cas. 1309, 2 Wash. C. C. 433 (circtdpa 1810).

16 F. Cas. 1309 (Medford v. Dorsey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Walsh
22 F. 644 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1884)
Grames v. Hawley
50 F. 319 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas, 1883)
Mason v. Pearson
118 Mass. 61 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)
Parish v. Gear
1 Pin. 261 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1842)