United States v. Beebe

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Beebe

92 F. 244, 34 C.C.A. 321, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 1899

DocketNo. 639

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 F. 244 (United States v. Beebe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Beebe, 92 F. 244, 34 C.C.A. 321, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127 (5th Cir. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

¡SWAYNE, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is evident that this is a suit to vacate, annul, and set aside the judgment of a court, regularly entered, in a matter of which it had jurisdiction, with all the parties before it, on the ground that the said defendants Beebe and Henshaw stated to the court that “they were poor men, and were without property; that nothing could be made out of them by execution; and that these statements were wholly untrue, and were made to deceive the court and United States attorney, and with the intent to defraud the United States.” In U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, Mr. Justice Miller announced the estab[246]*246lished doctrine on this subject to be “that the acts for which a court of equity will, on account of fraud, set aside or annul a judgment or decree between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried by the first court, and not to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered.” It is difficult to see upon what theory the judgment in this case can be set aside. The alleged false statements in the suits brought by the United States on the bond in question were not such as to deceive a person of ordinary care. They could not have deceived the district attorney, who represented the government, either as to the amount due on the bond or as to the property owned by the defendants. They did not in any way prevent the government from showing its cause of action, and taking judgment for the full amount due, if it saw fit to do so. Then, in about 15 months after the entry of said judgment, the government accepted satisfaction of the same by the officers of the treasury department, accepting the $100, with interest, from Beebe. We think the facts of this case bring it under the well-known rule announced in U. S. v. Throckmorton, supra, and the cases, folio wing it, and that the judgment below should be affirmed.

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

¡SWAYNE, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is evident that this is a suit to vacate, annul, and set aside the judgment of a court, regularly entered, in a matter of which it had jurisdiction, with all the parties before it, on the ground that the said defendants Beebe and Henshaw stated to the court that “they were poor men, and were without property; that nothing could be made out of them by execution; and that these statements were wholly untrue, and were made to deceive the court and United States attorney, and with the intent to defraud the United States.” In U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, Mr. Justice Miller announced the estab[246]*246lished doctrine on this subject to be “that the acts for which a court of equity will, on account of fraud, set aside or annul a judgment or decree between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried by the first court, and not to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered.” It is difficult to see upon what theory the judgment in this case can be set aside. The alleged false statements in the suits brought by the United States on the bond in question were not such as to deceive a person of ordinary care. They could not have deceived the district attorney, who represented the government, either as to the amount due on the bond or as to the property owned by the defendants. They did not in any way prevent the government from showing its cause of action, and taking judgment for the full amount due, if it saw fit to do so. Then, in about 15 months after the entry of said judgment, the government accepted satisfaction of the same by the officers of the treasury department, accepting the $100, with interest, from Beebe. We think the facts of this case bring it under the well-known rule announced in U. S. v. Throckmorton, supra, and the cases, folio wing it, and that the judgment below should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F. 244, 34 C.C.A. 321, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-beebe-ca5-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack