HUGH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
HIGGS AND WIFE, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 an action to recover money owed under a decree in equity, the Supreme Court held that a common law action on the case does not lie to enforce payment of money decreed by a court of chancery, reversing the circuit court's judgment that had permitted such an action to proceed based solely on the equity decree.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Marshall, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. — This is an action on the case, brought to recover the money which the plaintiff in error had been decreed by a court of chancery to pay to the defendants in error. The defendant in the court below contended, that an *action at common law did not lie on a decree in chancery, and excepted to the opinion of that court, overruling this objection. It is admitted by the opposite counsel, that, in general, the action does not lie to recover money claimed under the decree of a court of equity, but he supposed that, in this case, the money had been received by the defendant below, upon transactions, which took place after the decree. Upon examining the record, we perceive that the money was in his hands, as trustee, at the time the order to pay it over was made.
An objection was also made to an opinion of the circuit court, upon another part of the case. There was an agreement between the parties, under seal, and having some relation to the money, to which part of the claim relates, and the defendant below objected to the form of the action on that account. But we cannot discover, from the bill of exceptions, whether the money in contest was, or was not, received under that instrument. On that point, therefore, the court gives no opinion. The judgment is to be reversed for error in the opinion of the court below, which declares the action to be sustainable on the decretal order of the court of chancery, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Josias Pennington v. Lyman Gibson, 16 How. 65 (U.S. 1853)…be recovered in an action at law.” In support of the objection that the action in this case is founded on a decree in chancery could not be maintained, the counsel for the plaintiff in error has cited the case of Hugh v. Higgs and Wife, reported in 8 Wheat. 697. This is a short case, presenting no precise statement of the facts involved in it,, and as far as the facts are disclosed by the report, they are given in a somewhat confused and ambiguous form. It is true that the objection to the action, as found…
-
Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co., 2 F.2d 435 (6th Cir. 1924)…riginal jurisdictional section 1 of the Removal Acts of both 1875 and 1888, and that even before the enactment of the Judicial Code in 1911 (36 Stat. 1087, 1101 [Comp. St. § 1033]), this requirement was held waivable. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 899, 5 L. Ed. 719. Whether or not in the early removal cases under the statutes of 1875 and 1887-88 the term “jurisdiction” was used less strictly than it latterly has been, there is persuasive authority tending to support a view that jurisdiction will be retained w…