TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wabash & Erie Canal v. Beers

Wabash and Erie Canal vs. Beers

Wabash & Erie Canal v. Beers, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 54 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 18, 1862
Judges
Taney
Citations
66 U.S. 5417 L. Ed. 411 Black 541861 U.S. LEXIS 451
Headnotes
A decree of the Circuit Court adjudging that the defendant pay a certain sum into court within a limited time, or in default thereof the court will appoint a receiver, is a final decree, from which an appeal lies.
Summary
' Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana. Beers filed his bill in the Circuit Court, averring inter alia that the defendants, as trustees of the Wabash an I Erie canal, had certain moneys in their hands, arising from the sales of land and from tolls on the canal; that he, the complainant, had a lien on the proceeds of the land and upon the tolls, of which lien the defendants had notice, but refused to satisfy it. The bill prayed a decree that the defendants pay to the plaintiff the amount so due to him on a day to be named by the court, and that, in default of such payment, the canal be put into the hands of a receiver. The' Circuit Court found the facts to be as alleged in the bill, ascertained the amount due the plaintiffs to be $3,755 60, and therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendants pay into the clerk’s office, on or before November 1, the sum found due; “or, in default thereof, the court will, at the next term of this court, on motion of the complainant, appoint a receiver to take possession of said canal, or some portion thereof, for such time and on such terms as shall be according to the rules of this court, and just and equitable to the parties.”

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

Opinion — Taney

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.

This decree is final. It is decisive of the case made upon the record. It is positive, and not alternative. It leaves no question of right between the parties open for future adjudication. The decree orders the money to be brought into court within a limited time, and the court warns the defendants that if they fail or make default a particular measure will be taken to compel obedience. There is no want of finality here.

The motion is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1884–1885: 11892–1893: 11904–1905: 11916–1917: 11948–1949: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma334 U.S. 62 (1948)
  2. Bennett v. Thorne68 L.R.A. 113 (Wash. 1904)
  3. City of Des Moines v. Des Moines Water Co.230 F. 570 (8th Cir. 1916)
  4. Dufour v. Lang54 F. 913 (5th Cir. 1892)
  5. August v. Sorsby2 McGl. 335 (1884)

Most recent

  1. Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma334 U.S. 62 (1948)
  2. City of Des Moines v. Des Moines Water Co.230 F. 570 (8th Cir. 1916)
  3. Bennett v. Thorne68 L.R.A. 113 (Wash. 1904)
  4. Dufour v. Lang54 F. 913 (5th Cir. 1892)
  5. August v. Sorsby2 McGl. 335 (1884)

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