HEWITT
v.
CAMPBELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hewitt sought to establish that Campbell held real property in trust as a broker for Burgess rather than as a bona fide purchaser, despite holding absolute conveyances on their face. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the bill, finding that Hewitt had failed to establish the factual basis necessary to support his claim for relief through conflicting testimony in the record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
Counsel for appellant states the theory of the bill to be that Campbell was not the bona fide purchaser of the lots described, or of either of them, although he holds them by conveyances absolute upon their face ; that he was only the broker of Burgess; and that the conveyances were made to him in that capacity, for the purpose of enabling him to raise money upon them for the use of Burgess, less reasonable charges for any services in that behalf rendered. The bill was dismissed by the court below in special term, and that order was affirmed in general term.
The record discloses a serious conflict in the testimony of witnesses, and the court below might well have dismissed the bill upon the sole ground that the complainant had failed to establish the facts upon which he based his claim for relief, and which must have been established before any relief could be granted. The decree must, therefore, be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Bucher (two cases), 15 F.2d 783 (8th Cir. 1926)…ia, etc., Co., 242 F. 799, 155 C. C. A. 387; Schlank v. Smith, 246 F. 686, 158 C. C. A. 642; Silver King, etc., Co. v. Conkling Mining Co., 255 F. 740, 167 C. C. A. 86. And the Supreme Court and other circuits have done the like. Hewitt v. Campbell, 109 U. S. 103, 3 S. Ct. 68, 27 L. Ed. 873; Bell v. Saxon (C. C. A.) 296 F. 690; Johnson v. Ellmers (C. C. A.) 295 F. 685. We are of the opinion that the decrees below, dismissing plaintiff’s bills of complaint should be, and accordingly they are, affirmed. 29 S…