MATTOON
v.
MCGREW
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.
In Mattoon v. McGrew, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decree and held that a creditor cannot sell a husband's marital interest in property to satisfy a judgment against him, finding the case's essential facts substantially similar to those in Hitz v. The National Metropolitan Bank and applying that precedent to enjoin McGrew from attempting such a sale.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal because the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $2,500. From the facts appearing in the record, supplemented as they have been by affidavits as to value, we are satisfied this motion should be overruled, and it is so ordered.
It is conceded in the brief filed-for the appellee “ that the essential facts in this case are substantially like those in Hitz v. The National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722.” That case was decided on full consideration after an elaborate argument on both sides, and we are satisfied with the conclusion then reached. We therefore reverse this decree, on that authority, and remand the cause, with instructions to enter a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, enjoining the appellee McGrew from selling, or attempting to sell,- the marital right or interest of the. husband of the appellant in the property described in the bilk for the paymeht of his judgment against the husband. Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re NEW York & Porto RICO S.S. Co., 155 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1895)…liability of all persons or vessels involved should be determined in a single action rather than in successive independent suits. The decision was announced February 7, 1883, and on March 26, 1883, Eule 59 in admiralty was promulgated by this court. 112 U. S. 713. This rule-provided for procedure through which in. a suit against one vessel for- damage by collision process might be issued in the same suit against any other vessel charged with contributing to the same collision, or any other party, and for pro…
-
Richards v. United States, 192 F.2d 602 (D.C. Cir. 1951)…S.Ct. 359, 88 L.Ed. 290; Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 290, 295, 61 U.S. 290, 15 L.Ed. 822; Seymour v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822, 72 U.S. 822, 18 L.Ed. 564; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153, 73 U.S. 153, 18 L.Ed. 762; Polleys v. Black River Co., 113 U.S. 81, 5 S.Ct. 369, 28 L.Ed. 938. Other persuasive authority, though likewise not strictly in point, looks in the same direction. Neely v. Merchants Trust Co. of Red Bank, N. J., 3 Cir., 110 F. 2d 525; Rosenberg v. Heffron, 9 Cir., 131 F. 2d 80; United States v. Moore…
-
Hitz v. Jenks, 123 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1887)…e the payment of his debt, notwithstanding that the act of 1869, as construed by this court, exempted the land, or any interest therein, from being taken on execution against him. Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722; Mattoon v. McGrew, 112 U. S. 713. The more important question is, whether the appellant has shown by competent and sufficient proof that her acknowledgment of the deed to Crane did not fulfil the requirements of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia upon the subject, wh…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hitz v. Nat'l Metro. Bank, 111 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1884)