Oneale v. Caldwell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Oneale v. Caldwell

18 F. Cas. 695, 3 D.C. 312, 3 Cranch 312

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F. Cas. 695 (Oneale v. Caldwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oneale v. Caldwell, 18 F. Cas. 695, 3 D.C. 312, 3 Cranch 312 (circtddc 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

The CouRT, however, was of opinion that its power to decree a sale of the property included a power to compel all the parties to submit to such decree, and to carry it into effect; and on the 6th of June, 1828, an injunction was issued by the Court, commanding the defendants and all other persons to deliver the possession to Mr. Leclde. This injunction having been served and disobeyed, and it having been suggested that Mrs. McCormick, the widow of the intestate, was entitled to dower, a commission was issued, by order of the Court and consent of parties, on the 14th of June, 1828, to assign her dower, which was returned executed; and the report of the commissioners assigning her dower was, ofl the 21st of June, 1828, confirmed by the Court; and, upon the authority of the case of Garretson v. Cole, 1 Har. & Johns. 389, a writ of habere facias possessionem, was ordered, agreeably to the form adopted by the Chancellor in that case; which is not exactly the form of the common-law writ, but was framed by the Chancellor to suit the occasion. See the Maryland Act of 1785, c. 72, § 27.

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

The CouRT, however, was of opinion that its power to decree a sale of the property included a power to compel all the parties to submit to such decree, and to carry it into effect; and on the 6th of June, 1828, an injunction was issued by the Court, commanding the defendants and all other persons to deliver the possession to Mr. Leclde. This injunction having been served and disobeyed, and it having been suggested that Mrs. McCormick, the widow of the intestate, was entitled to dower, a commission was issued, by order of the Court and consent of parties, on the 14th of June, 1828, to assign her dower, which was returned executed; and the report of the commissioners assigning her dower was, ofl the 21st of June, 1828, confirmed by the Court; and, upon the authority of the case of Garretson v. Cole, 1 Har. & Johns. 389, a writ of habere facias possessionem, was ordered, agreeably to the form adopted by the Chancellor in that case; which is not exactly the form of the common-law writ, but was framed by the Chancellor to suit the occasion. See the Maryland Act of 1785, c. 72, § 27.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. Cas. 695, 3 D.C. 312, 3 Cranch 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneale-v-caldwell-circtddc-1828.