Wells v. Dalrymple

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio

Wells v. Dalrymple

29 F. Cas. 645, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 59

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio

DecidedJanuary 15, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F. Cas. 645 (Wells v. Dalrymple) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. Dalrymple, 29 F. Cas. 645, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 59 (circtdoh 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

EMMONS, Circuit Judge,

held: That in proceeding to set aside a sale of real estate there must exist a judgment lien by statute, in which case the title must be in the judgment debtor, or a lien by levy, neither of which is here set up. That if this had been a ] denary bill in equity it would be dismissed on that ground. But two cases [Day v. Washburn, 24 How. (65 U. S.) 352; Adler v. Fenton, Id. 407] hold that unless this objection is taken in the answer, it will be held to be waived. The answer does not raise the question. If proceedings were remanded for amendment to petition, the answer could then also be amended so as to raise this question, which would be fatal to the petition, the fact being that no lien existed before this petition was filed. Proceeding to review the case on its merits, EMMONS, Circuit Judge, held, that an appellate court, before reversing a decree on a question of fact, should be able to see some plain mistake, some misapprehension of the fact, so plain a misapprehension, so evident an error, as to warrant the appellate court, with much confidence, in saying that were the case reargued in the court below, that court would reconsider its own judgment.

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

EMMONS, Circuit Judge,

held: That in proceeding to set aside a sale of real estate there must exist a judgment lien by statute, in which case the title must be in the judgment debtor, or a lien by levy, neither of which is here set up. That if this had been a ] denary bill in equity it would be dismissed on that ground. But two cases [Day v. Washburn, 24 How. (65 U. S.) 352; Adler v. Fenton, Id. 407] hold that unless this objection is taken in the answer, it will be held to be waived. The answer does not raise the question. If proceedings were remanded for amendment to petition, the answer could then also be amended so as to raise this question, which would be fatal to the petition, the fact being that no lien existed before this petition was filed. Proceeding to review the case on its merits, EMMONS, Circuit Judge, held, that an appellate court, before reversing a decree on a question of fact, should be able to see some plain mistake, some misapprehension of the fact, so plain a misapprehension, so evident an error, as to warrant the appellate court, with much confidence, in saying that were the case reargued in the court below, that court would reconsider its own judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. Cas. 645, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-dalrymple-circtdoh-1872.