HOLMES
v.
SEVIER
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.
The Supreme Court reversed a Circuit Court decision dismissing a bill to enforce payment on a promissory note given as purchase money for slaves that were subsequently emancipated by the federal government. The Court held that the emancipation of the slaves did not extinguish the obligation to pay the note, applying the principle established in its concurrent decision in Osborn v. Nicholson.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal jn equity from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The bill was filed by the appellants to enforce the payment of the balance due upon a promissory note, bearing date-on the 25th of December, 1856, made by John A. Jordan, since deceased, to Robert Ryan, also since deceased, for ten thousand dollars, payable on the first of January, a¡d. 1860, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from date until paid.. The note was secured by a mortgage, and is averred to have been given for the purchase money of slaves subsequently emancipated by-the government of the United States. The defendants demurred to the bill. The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. The opinion of the court was confined to the effect of the emancipation of the slaves upon the validity of the note. The judgment proceeded upon that ground. The views of this court upon that subject were fully expressed in Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654, recently decided at this term, and they are decisive of this case.
Mr. P. Phillips and Mr. 8. P. Clark for appellants.
Mr. George C. Watkins and Mr. U. M. Rose for appellees.
In accordance with those views the decree of the court below is reversed, and the case will be remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to proceed in conformity to the opinion of this court.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JOY v. Godchaux, 35 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1929)…ent of any other debt due to the company. Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 23 L. Ed. 220; Webster v. Upton, Assignee, 91 U. S. 65, 23 L. Ed. 384; Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S. 104, 12 S. Ct. 585, 36 L. Ed. 363; Herhold v. Upton, 154 U. S. 624, Appx., and 14 S. Ct. 1203, 23 L. Ed. 892. The contest is not between two parties in pari delicto. While the creditors may not be in the same category as innocent holders of notes, they occupy a status brought about by reliance upon appellee and other directors of the corpora…
Authorities Cited
- Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654 (U.S. 1871)