TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jenkins v. Loewenthal

JENKINS, Assignee, v. LŒWENTHAL & Another

Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U.S. 222 (1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 21, 1884
Docket
No. 1232
Judges
Waite
Citations
110 U.S. 2223 S. Ct. 63828 L. Ed. 1291884 U.S. LEXIS 1682
Syllabus
Error — Practice. When the record discloses two defences to an action brought in a State court, one presenting a federal question, and one presenting no federal question, either of which if sustained was a complete defence to the suit, and that the State court gave judgment in favor of thp defendant on both, and the cause is brought here by writ of error, this court will affirm the judgment below without' considering the federal question.
Summary
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

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 suit was brought by Robert E. Jenkins, as assignee in bankruptcy of Samuel J. Walker, a bankrupt, to recover certain lands conveyed by the bankrupt to Eh Kinney, on the alleged ground that the conveyances, though absolute on their face, were intended as mortgages. Two defences were interposed among others, one that the defendants, who are the present owners of the property, are innocent purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice of any outstanding equities in the assignee or the bankrupt; and the other that the suit was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued to the assignee. Rev. Stat., § 505Y. Either of these defences, if sustained, bars the action. The second involves a federal question, the other does not. The court in its decree sustained them both, and, among other things, found as a fact that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. As this finding is broad enough to maintain the decree, even though the federal question involved in the other defence was decided wrong, we affirm the decree, without considering that question or expressing any opinion upon it.

Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 , sustains this practice.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1884–1885: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 21932–1933: 11934–1935: 118842026peak 1894 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fuller, Trustee v. Rock180 N.E. 367 (Ohio 1932)
  2. Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Batchers' Union Slaughter-House Co.120 U.S. 141 (1887)
  3. Eustis v. Bolles150 U.S. 361 (1893)
  4. Mitchell v. Clark110 U.S. 633 (1884)
  5. United States v. Hastings296 U.S. 188 (1935)
  6. Hale v. Akers132 U.S. 554 (1889)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Hastings296 U.S. 188 (1935)
  2. Fuller, Trustee v. Rock180 N.E. 367 (Ohio 1932)
  3. Rutland Railroad v. Cent. Vt. Railroad159 U.S. 630 (1895)
  4. Rutland R. Co. v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Two Cases)159 U.S. 630 (1895)
  5. Eustis v. Bolles150 U.S. 361 (1893)
  6. Hale v. Akers132 U.S. 554 (1889)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875) 266

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