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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
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 : www.chanroblesbar.com 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 www.chanrobles.com


HUFF V. HUTCHINSON, 55 U. S. 586 (1852)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 55 U. S. 586 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Huff v. Hutchinson, 55 U.S. 14 How. 586 586 (1852)

Huff v. Hutchinson

55 U.S. (14 How.) 586

Syllabus

Where the Marshal of the District of Wisconsin attached property at the suit of creditors in New York, and then gave it up upon the execution of a bond to himself for the use of those creditors, it was within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States for Wisconsin to entertain a suit by the marshal, suing upon the bond for the New York creditors, against the claimants in Wisconsin, although both parties resided in the same state.

The name of the marshal was merely formal; the real plaintiffs were averred to be citizens of New York.

It was not a good exception upon the ground of variation between the evidence and declaration that the latter stated the bond to have been given to Hutchinson as marshal of the District of Wisconsin, and the former said the State of Wisconsin. They mean the same thing.

Judgment having been rendered for the plaintiffs in the attachment by a court having jurisdiction over the subject, it was too late to object to those proceedings in a suit upon the bond, in which they were collaterally introduced.

The bond given to the marshal was in conformity with the statute. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 55 U. S. 587

The objections that the declaration on the bond did not show the jurisdiction of the court in the attachment suit; that the verdict was entered for the amount due instead of the penalty of the bond, and that the recovery was for a sum greater than was claimed by the ad damnum in the declaration, were not sufficient for a new trial.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED