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

GRANT V. PHOENIX LIFE INS. CO., 120 U. S. 271 (1887)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 120 U. S. 271 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 120 U.S. 271 (1887)

Grant v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company

Submitted January 17, 1887

Decided January 31, 1887

120 U.S. 271


In a suit for foreclosing a mortgage, it appearing that a receiver has been appointed of the mortgaged premises and that the mortgagor, appellant, is unable to pay the cost of printing the record on appeal and that there are rents and profits in the receiver's hands collected during the pendency of the suit, the Court orders the receiver to pay to the clerk the sum estimated to be necessary to complete the cost of printing the record.

The following motion was filed in these cases:

"The above appellant [Grant] moves the honorable the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, that Brainard H. Warner, the receiver appointed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in Equity Cause 4291, be directed to turn over to the Clerk of this Honorable Court out of the rents and profits in his hands the amount of $5,500, for costs accruing or to accrue in the hearing of the cause and for counsel fees as set forth in the petition, for the following reasons: "

"First. Because the rents and profits are not mortgaged to the appellee, and said appellee has no right nor just claims to the fund in the hands of the said Warner."

"Second. Because the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in General Term has once finally decided that said rents and profits belong to the appellant, and discharged a receiver for that reason, and turned over the property and funds to the appellant by the decree of said court."

"Third. Because at the time of the appointment of said Warner, the cause stood precisely as it stood on February 12, 1878, when the court discharged the former receiver, and because appellant was refused a hearing by the court below

Page 120 U. S. 272

on said appointment which was made by an interlocutory order and not being continued in the final decree of June 16, 1883, said appointment was superseded thereby."

"Fourth. Because the appellee has delayed the cause for many years by violating the rules and practices of the court, and thereby has caused the destruction of the property and loss of the rents and profits."

"Fifth. Because, without receiving the amount prayed for in his petition, appellant will not be able to properly present his case to your Honorable Court, and will thus be prevented from obtaining the right and justice to which he is entitled."

"Sixth. Because of many other manifest reasons appearing of record and set forth in the petition."

Leave was granted to both sides to file briefs.

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 |™