TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vigel v. Hopp

Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U.S. 441 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 12, 1881
Docket
No. 147
Judges
Waite
Citations
104 U.S. 44126 L. Ed. 76514 Otto 4411881 U.S. LEXIS 2021
Headnotes
"Where the answer is responsive to the allegations of the complainant’s bill, they must, to entitle him to relief, be sustained by the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated, by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to the testimony of another witness.
Summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

• This is a suit in equity begun by the appellee to set aside a deed executed by her to the appellant, on the ground that the deed, though absolute on its face, was intended only as security for a. debt, which has since been paid in full. There are numerous allegations of fraud, but the" whole scope and pur *442 pose of the suit is to-, establish a trust, and get back the property in that way. The answer denies every allegation- of fraud and trust, and insists that the deed was intended-as an absolute conveyance, and not as security. ,-This is responsive. to the bill, and before the relief can be granted which is asked, these denials must be overcome by the-satisfactory testimony of two ■witnesses,, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to another. 2 Story, Eq., sect. 1528. - The appellee is the only witness in support of .the bill, and the corroborating circumstances are not, in our opinion, sufficient to overcome the answer. It will serve no useful purpose to enter into analysis of the testimony.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 28 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 31890: 21891: 11892: 11893: 21896: 11897: 31901: 11902: 11904: 11905: 11906: 11907: 11909: 11913: 11915: 11917: 11918: 11919: 11920: 21934: 118882026peak 1888 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Campbell v. Northwest Eckington Improvement Co.229 U.S. 561 (1913)
  2. Kennedy v. Custer174 F. 972 (8th Cir. 1909)
  3. Toledo Metal Wheel Co. v. Foyer Bros. & Co.223 F. 350 (6th Cir. 1915)
  4. Wilcox v. El Banco Popular De Economias Y Prestamos De San Juan, P. R.255 F. 442 (1st Cir. 1918)
  5. Bray v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.267 F. 533 (4th Cir. 1920)
  6. Ford v. Taylor137 F. 149 (1905)

Most recent

  1. Greenfield v. Blumenthal69 F.2d 294 (3d Cir. 1934)
  2. Bray v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.267 F. 533 (4th Cir. 1920)
  3. American Railroad Co. v. Ponce & Guayama Railroad11 P.R. Fed. 476 (D.P.R. 1920)
  4. Demarest v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.257 F. 162 (D. Conn. 1919)
  5. Wilcox v. El Banco Popular De Economias Y Prestamos De San Juan, P. R.255 F. 442 (1st Cir. 1918)
  6. American Elementary Electric Co. v. Normandy46 App. D.C. 329 (D.C. Cir. 1917)

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