SAMUEL VERDEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ISAAC COLEMAN
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.
Verden sought to cancel a mortgage and obtain an injunction to prevent foreclosure in an Indiana circuit court, but the court dissolved the temporary injunction after the defendants answered. The Supreme Court dismissed Verden's writ of error, holding that a decree on a motion to dissolve an injunction during the pendency of a chancery suit is not a final decree subject to review under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff filed Ms bill in the circuit' court of Benton county, Indiana, sitting in chancery, to obtain a decree to cancel a mortgage and the mortgage note, and also to restrain,, by injunction, the mortgagee from proceeding upon the power of sale contained in the mortgage until the final hearing, and from thence perpetually.
A temporary injunction was granted in vacation upon the usual conditions, which was dissolved, on the coming in of the answers Upon the motion of the defendants, by the circuit court.
From the order dissolving the; injunction there was an appeal to the supreme court of Indiana, where, after argument, the decree .of the circuit court was .affirmed. Upon tMs decree this writ of error is prosecuted.
This court has repeatedly decided that a decree upon a motion .to dissolve an injunction in the course of a chancery cause, and where the bill is hot finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be reexamined in this court, under the terms of the 25th section of the judiciary act of the 24th September, 1789. McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448.
The writ of error is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLARY v. O'Hare, 786 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1986)…aniels held that the due process clause was intended to “prevent governmental power from being ‘used for purposes of oppression.’ ” — U.S. at —, 106 S.Ct. at 665 (quoting Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 277, 15 L.Ed. 272 (1856)). The Daniels Court went on to hold that negligently leaving a pillow on a prison staircase did not amount to an abuse of power violative of the due process clause. Much of the case law on substantive due process was developed with this notio…
-
Ex parte Norton, 108 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1883)
-
Gant v. Okla. City, 284 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1932)…Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86; Augusta [*595] Power Co. v. Savannah River Electric Co., ante, p. 574; Twin City Power Co. v. Savannah River Electric Co., ante, p. 574; Brannan v. Harrison, ante, p. 579. Mr. J. H. Everest for .appellants. No appearance for appellees.…
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
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448 (U.S. 1821)
- McCollum v. Jenison Eager, 2 How. 61 (U.S. 1844)