Supreme Court of the United States, 1855

Verden v. Coleman

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 21, 1855 · Campbell

59 U.S. 86; 15 L. Ed. 272; 18 How. 86; 1855 U.S. LEXIS 666 (United States Reports)

Counsel

It was argued by Mr. Gillette for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for Coleman.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

L. S. Brannan, M. N. Carroll, D. O. Hamby v. William B. Harrison, as Comptroller General, Etc (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Williams v. Quill (Supreme Court of the United States 1938)
Musser v. Sheppard (Supreme Court of the United States 1936)
Gant v. Oklahoma City (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
Atlanta Laundries, Inc. v. City of Newman (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
Twin City Power Co. v. Savannah River Electric Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Augusta Power Co. v. Savannah River Electric Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Brannan v. Harrison (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Denver & R. G. R. v. Walker (8th Cir. 1895)
Norton v. Hood (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana 1882)
Ableman v. Booth (Wis. 1859)

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

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff filed Ms bill in the circuit' court of Benton county, Indiana, sitting in chancery, to obtain a decree to cancel a mortgage and the mortgage note, and also to restrain,, by injunction, the mortgagee from proceeding upon the power of sale contained in the mortgage until the final hearing, and from thence perpetually.

A temporary injunction was granted in vacation upon the usual conditions, which was dissolved, on the coming in of the answers Upon the motion of the defendants, by the circuit court.

From the order dissolving the; injunction there was an appeal to the supreme court of Indiana, where, after argument, the decree .of the circuit court was .affirmed. Upon tMs decree this writ of error is prosecuted.

This court has repeatedly decided that a decree upon a motion .to dissolve an injunction in the course of a chancery cause, and where the bill is hot finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be reexamined in this court, under the terms of the 25th section of the judiciary act of the 24th September, 1789. McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448.

The writ of error is dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.