MARY DENEALE, EXECUTRIX, OF GEORGE DENEALE, AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR
v.
JOHN ARCHER AND JOHN W. STUMP, EXECUTORS OF JOHN STUMP, DECEASED, 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 a scire facias proceeding to revive a judgment against devisees, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because it was brought in the name of "Mary Deneale and others" without identifying the other parties by name. Chief Justice Marshall held that all parties to a judgment must be named and joined in a writ of error for the Court to proceed, and that the writ was irregular and subject to dismissal on that ground, though the plaintiffs could bring a new writ in proper form.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was the case of a scire facias against devisees to revive a judgment. The scire facias is in its form without precedent, and a demurrer was filed to it. Process on the scire facias issued against four devisees, and service was made upon two only of them. An office judgment was then taken against all the devisees. The two of them on whom the process was served, afterwards appeared, and the office judgment was set aside as to them, and they then pleaded the statute of limitations. There was a demurrer to the replication and judgment against all the devisees.
The present writ of error is brought by Mary Deneale “ and others,” as plaintiffs ; but who the others are cannot be known to the court, for their names are not given in the writ of error, as they ought to be. Mary Deneale cannot alone maintain a writ of error on this judgment: but all the parties must be joined and their names set forth, in order that the court may proceed to give a proper judgment on the case. The present writ of error must therefore be dismissed for irregularity; but a new one in due form may hereafter be brought to revise the judgment.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United Slates for the district of Columbia holden in and for the county of Alexandria, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that this writ of error is irregular, and should be dismissed, inasmuch as it is in the name of “ Mary Deneale and others,” without naming who those others are ; whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that this case be, and the same is hereby dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. John Andreu v. Heth Canfield, 40 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1898)…ore it; more especially should this be the rule under our statute discussed supra that substitutes the record of the writ of error in the court below in place of the former service of scire facias ad audiendum errores. Deneale v. Stump’s Exexcutors, 8 Pet. 526; Holliday v. Batson, 4 How. 645; Smith v. Clark, 12 How. 21; Estis v. Trabue, 128 U. S. 225, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Beall v. Executors of Fox, 4 Ga. 403; Miller v. McKenzie, 10 Wall. 582; The Protector, 11 Wall. 82; Alston v. Rowles, 13 Fla. 110; [*59]…
-
Guar. Tr. & Safe Deposit Co. v. Buddington, 23 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1887)
-
Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1881)…ined without affecting the rights of others, they should be before the court. If he alone wishes to prosecute the appeal’ he must do it with proper notice to them and severance. 20 Wall., 158; 12 How., 327; 16 How., 142; 12 Pet., 140; 14 Wall., 402; 8 Pet. 526; 13 Fla., 596; 16 Fla., 498; 8 John., 558; 23 Wend., 621; 14 Ohio State, 287. The appeal is dismissed. At the same term, on April 8th, and after an order had been entered dismissing the appeal, the appellant entered a motion and filed the followin…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence