United States v. Fields

25 F. Cas. 1067, 4 Blatchf. 326, 1859 U.S. App. LEXIS 759
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided May 26, 1859·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

HALL, District Judge.

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

United States v. Fields, 25 F. Cas. 1067, 4 Blatchf. 326, 1859 U.S. App. LEXIS 759 (circtsdny 1859).

25 F. Cas. 1067 (United States v. Fields) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Police Jury of Parish of Tensas
14 F. 390 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1882)
Cole v. Curtis
16 Minn. 182 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1870)