TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Heirs of P. F. Dubourg De St Colombe v. United States

The Heirs of P. F. Dubourg De St Colombe, Appellants v. the United States

Heirs of P. F. Dubourg De St Colombe v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 625 (1833)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 18, 1833
Judges
Marshall
Citations
32 U.S. 6258 L. Ed. 8077 Pet. 6251833 U.S. LEXIS 365
Headnotes
A complex and intricate account is an unfit subject for examination in a court, and ought always to be referred to a commissioner, to be examined by him and reported, in order to a final decree. To such report the parties may take any exceptions, and thus bring any question they may think proper before the court.
Summary
APPEAL from the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Marshall

Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States had obtained judgment against P. F. Dubourg de St Colombe, in his lifetime, for a large sum of money. This judgment was revived after his death; or in the law language of Louisiana, declared executory; and the property of which he died possessed, ordered to be seized and sold to satisfy the demand of the United States.

The heirs of P. F. Dubourg de St Colombe filed their bill, praying an injunction to stay proceedings at law on this judgment.

The bill alleges that the estate of their parents was held in common at the death of their mother, and that the moiety belonging to their mother descended at her death on them, and was not liable for debts, afterwards contracted by their fáther. It also alleges that they were infants, and that their father took possession of their estate, which he had wasted to an amount exceeding his effects in their hands. The law of Louisiana,' they say, gave them a lien at the death of their mother on all the estate of their father, to the extent of this waste, exempt from the claim of any subsequent creditor.

*626 Several witnesses were examined, and several documents filed to prove the amount of the estate, at the death of their mother. The accounts are complex and intricate. The judge examined them, and being of opinion that the estate was insolvent at the death of the mother, dissolved the injunction and decreed costs. This has been understood to be a final decree, and to be equivalent to dismissing the bill. The plaintiffs appealed to this court.

We are of opinion that a complex and intricate account is an unfit subject for examination in court, and ought always to be referred to a commissioner to. be examined by him and reported, in order to a final decree. To such report the parties may take any exceptions • and thus bring any question they may think proper before the court. The decree therefore is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, with directions to refer the account to a commissioner, with instructions to settle and report the amount of the estate at the death of the wife, in order to a final decree; and to state such matters specially as he may think necessary, or as either party may require.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1864–1865: 11870–1871: 21874–1875: 31878–1879: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 21892–1893: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11902–1903: 11920–1921: 11928–1929: 21932–1933: 118642026peak 1874 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barrick v. Pratt32 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1929)
  2. Briggs v. Neal120 F. 224 (4th Cir. 1903)
  3. Newark Fire Ins. v. Bisbee Linseed Co.33 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1929)
  4. Ex Parte Peterson253 U.S. 300 (1920)
  5. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Commission289 U.S. 287 (1933)
  6. Field v. Brown45 N.E. 464 (Ind. 1896)

Most recent

  1. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. Railroad Commission289 U.S. 287 (1933)
  2. Newark Fire Ins. v. Bisbee Linseed Co.33 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1929)
  3. Barrick v. Pratt32 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1929)
  4. Ex Parte Peterson253 U.S. 300 (1920)
  5. Briggs v. Neal120 F. 224 (4th Cir. 1903)
  6. Field v. Brown45 N.E. 464 (Ind. 1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list