JACOWAY
v.
DENTON
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.
William D. Jacoway's estate challenged a judgment requiring payment of a $4,500 promissory note executed in 1860, arguing that the consideration—the purchase of slaves—had wholly failed due to emancipation under Arkansas's 1864 constitution and the federal Thirteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, finding the case presented no federal question within its cognizance.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is also before us upon a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
The defendant in error brought suit in the Circuit Court of Yell County to the September term, 1866, upon the writing obligatory executed to him by William D. Jacoway, deceased, on the 4th of October, 1860, for the sum of $4500 payable one year from date, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the maturity of the obligation until its payment. The administrator interposed three pleas:
(1) That the consideration of the obligation was the purchase of slaves, and that they were all emancipated by the constitution of Arkansas adopted in 1864.
(2) That the slaves were emancipated by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the consideration of the obligation thereby wholly failed.
(3) That the contract was originally null and void.
The plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrers and gave judgment against the defendant for the amount claimed in the declaration. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, and that court affirmed the judgment.
Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. P. Phillips for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error. After what we have said in Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, just decided, it is sufficient to remark that the record discloses no question cognizable by this court.
The writ of error is therefore dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Cyrene. the Fell Loveland. Williams v. Norfolk, 85 F.2d 935 (4th Cir. 1936)…justified in assuming that the other understands and will govern herself accordingly. The Lake Calvenia (C.C.A.) 2 F.(2d) 416; The Lowell M. Palmer (C.C.A.) 142 F. 937; The Transfer (C.C.A.) 45 F.(2d) 571; The St. John, 154 U.S. 586, 14 S.Ct. 1170, 20 L.Ed. 645, and see The Norfolk (D.C.) 297 F. 251, 253. Under these circumstances, we do not think that the tug was bound to know that the signals of the Pawtucket and the War-field were intended only for each other. As a matter of fact they were not so inten…
Authorities Cited
- Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12 (U.S. 1871)