US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

WARREN V. WILLIAMS, 11 U. S. 602 (1813)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 11 U. S. 602 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Warren v. Williams, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 602 602 (1813)

Warren v. Williams

11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 602




DECIDED: the Circuit Court of Tennessee, as a court of equity, cannot award a writ of habere facias possessionem to enforce its decree.

Error to the Circuit Court for the District of East Tennessee in a suit in equity in which Joseph Williams, on 15 November, 1799, brought his bill of complaint against Elisha Wallen and John Williams, whereby he stated that the defendants and others, in the year 1779, entered into a co-partnership in the entering of lands in the land office for the sale of lands in that part of the State of North Carolina which now lies within the District of East Tennessee and that each party was, on demand, to pay his proportion of the money due to the state upon the entries to the party who should advance it, and that if any party so failed to pay his proportion, he should forfeit his share of the lands entered and should cease to be a partner. That Joseph Williams, the complainant, paid the whole of the money due to the state for the lands entered, and that John Williams, one of the defendants, not having paid anything, sold his share of the lands to the other defendant, Wallen, who had notice that nothing had been paid by John Williams. Wallen obtained patents, upon this assignment of John Williams, for two tracts of 640 acres each and one for 440. The latter tract of 440 acres he sold to a purchaser without notice, but he still held the other two tracts. That the complainant had demanded from Wallen payment of John Williams' proportion of the money due to the state, which Wallen refused to pay. The defendant in his answer relied in part on the statute of limitations.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™