United States v. Fields
This text of 25 F. Cas. 1067 (United States v. Fields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
As it appears that Gardiner, the defendant in the original suit, never appeared therein, and was never even served with process, I am of the opinion that a bill of revivor is not proper, and that the application for the order sought by the attorney for the United States must be denied. The following authorities are, I think, decisive of the case, and they will sufficiently indicate the course proper to be pursued: 3 Daniell, Ch. Prac. 1673, 1698, 1707, 1708; 2 Barb. Ch. Prac. 36, 37; Crowfoot v. Mander, 9 Sim. 396; Stewart v. Nicholls, Tam. 307; Hardy v. Hull, 14 Sim. 21; Foster v. Foster, 16 Sim. 637.
The motion is denied, but without prejudice to any future application for leave to file a supplemental bill, or a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, or to any motion which the United States or the defendant may think proper to make.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 F. Cas. 1067, 4 Blatchf. 326, 1859 U.S. App. LEXIS 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fields-circtsdny-1859.