TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morrison v. Durr

Morrison and Another v. Durr and Another

Morrison v. Durr, 122 U.S. 518 (1887)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 27, 1887
Docket
No. 270
Judges
Waite
Citations
122 U.S. 5187 S. Ct. 121530 L. Ed. 12251887 U.S. LEXIS 2131
Syllabus
In this case the hill having called for answers under oath, and such answers having been made denying each and every allegation of fraud, and the evidence of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances, being wanting in support of the charges of fraud, this court will not reverse the decree dismissing the bill.
Summary
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR. THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

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 brought by several judgment creditors of the mercantile firm of Kennedy & Durr, to set aside a sale of the goods of the firm of Charles McDermot, under executions on judgments in his favor, on the ground of fraud, and to have the property and its proceeds in the hands of McDermot subjected to the payment of the amounts due them respectively. The .bill called for answers under oath, and McDermot answered accordingly, denying each and all of the allegations of fraud which were made against him. This being responsive to the bill, his denials must be overcome by the satisfactory evidence of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in iveight to another, before the- complainants can be granted the relief they ask. No such proof has been made. We have looked carefully through the whole evidence, and, while it is full of circumstances calculated to excite suspicion, there is not enough to justify us in reversing the decree of the court below dismiss *519 ing the bill. The questions involved are principally of fact, which it would serve no useful purpose to consider at length in an opinion.

The decree is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11892: 11893: 11896: 11897: 21902: 11903: 11904: 11905: 11907: 118882026peak 1897 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Uri v. Hirsch123 F. 568 (W.D. Mo. 1903)
  2. Snow v. Hazlewood157 F. 898 (5th Cir. 1907) · Dissent
  3. Ford v. Taylor137 F. 149 (1905)
  4. Satterfield v. Malone35 F. 445 (1888)
  5. Harvey v. Sellers115 F. 757 (1902)
  6. Childs v. N. B. Carlstein Co.76 F. 86 (1896)

Most recent

  1. Snow v. Hazlewood157 F. 898 (5th Cir. 1907) · Dissent
  2. Ford v. Taylor137 F. 149 (1905)
  3. Fajardo de Salazar v. Costa1 P.R. Fed. 119 (D.P.R. 1904)
  4. Uri v. Hirsch123 F. 568 (W.D. Mo. 1903)
  5. Harvey v. Sellers115 F. 757 (1902)
  6. Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Union Trust Co. of San Francisco83 F. 891 (1897)

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