Deneale and Others v. STUMP'S EXECUTORS.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Whitlock v. Willard (Fla. 1881)
- Territory of Hawaii v. Ah Sing (Haw. 1907)
- Fraser v. Fraser (Ill. App. Ct. 1903)
- State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield (Fla. 1898)
- Walton v. Marietta Chair Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
- McIntyre v. Sholty (Ill. 1891)
- Estis v. Trabue (Supreme Court of the United States 1888)
- Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Buddington, Wilson & Co. (Fla. 1887)
- Van Horn v. The Natchez (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana 1886)
- Gumbel v. Pitkin (Supreme Court of the United States 1885)
- Cameron v. Sheppard (Ga. 1883)
- The City of Lincoln (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana 1883)
- Loring v. Wittich (Fla. 1878)
- Simpson v. Greeley (Supreme Court of the United States 1874)
- McClure v. Taylor (Ind. 1871)
- Smith v. Clark (Supreme Court of the United States 1852)
- The Heirs of Wilson v. THE LIFE & FIRE INS. CO. OF NY (Supreme Court of the United States 1838)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was the case of a scire facias against devisees to revive a judgment. The scire facias is in its form without precedent, and a demurrer was filed to it. Process on the scire facias issued against four devisees, and service was made upon two only of them. An office judgment was then taken against all the devisees. The two of them on whom the process was served, afterwards appeared, and the office judgment was set aside as to them, and they then pleaded the statute of limitations. There was a demurrer to the replication and judgment against all the devisees.
The present writ of error is brought by Mary Deneale “ and others,” as plaintiffs ; but who the others are cannot be known to the court, for their names are not given in the writ of error, *527 as they ought to be. Mary Deneale cannot alone maintain a writ of error on this judgment: but all the parties must be joined and their names set forth, in order that the court may proceed to give a proper judgment on the case. The present writ of error must therefore be dismissed for irregularity; but a new one in due form may hereafter be brought to revise the judgment.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United Slates for the district of Columbia holden in and for the county of Alexandria, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that this writ of error is irregular, and should be dismissed, inasmuch as it is in the name of “ Mary Deneale and others,” without naming who those others are ; whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that this case be, and the same is hereby dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.