Orchard v. Hughes
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
1. The fatal defect in both the answer and the prooís is, that, admitting every allegation against the legality of the bank charter, and of the worthlessness of the paper issued by the bank, Orchard, the maker of the note and of the mortgage, has not been the sufferer. The bills constituting a por
2. The appeal from the decree of the court below directing a sale of the mortgaged premises, did not operate to stay the proceedings, as the bond given was simply a bond for costs. The complainants below, therefore, proceeded to execute the decree by a sale of the land, under the direction of a master, and on the coming in of his report of the sale, certain exceptions were taken to the report and overruled, and a decree of confirmation entered. An appeal was taken by the defendants below from that decree, and has been argued in connection with the appeal from the previous and principal one. This second appeal seems to be a necessity from a very early decision of this court in the case of a foreclosure of a mortgage, that the decree in favor of the complainant, adjudging a sale of the mortgaged premises, was a final decreí within the meaning of the Judiciary Act authorizing an appeal. We have accordingly looked into the second record in connection with the first, and are satisfied that there is no well-grounded objection to the report of the master, and that the court below was right in confirming it.
But there is a clause in this decree that is in conflict with
It was held by this court in Noonan v. Lee,
The decree in the present case was rendered in a territorial court, and it has been contended that this court is not a court under the Constitution, nor organized under the Judiciary Act of 1789, but by the legislature of the Territory under the organic law, and whose jurisdiction is regulated by that law, and therefore that the decision in the case of Noonan v. Lee does not apply.
Decree accordingly.
2 Black, 499-601.
American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Peters, 546.
By rule of court, adopted since tliis decision, execution may now issue. See ante, p. iii.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Orchard v. Hughes Id. v. Id
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- t. It is no defence to a suit for debt tbat tbe debt arose from tbe receipt of tbe bills of a bank that was chartered illegally and for fraudulent purposes, and that tbe bills were void in law, and finally proved worthless in fact; tbe bills themselves having been actually current at the time the defendant received them, and they not having proved worthless in his hands, nor he being bound to take them back from persons to whom he had paid them away. 2. When a bond is given for appeal in a bill of foreclosure of mortgage, the condition of the bond being simply that the appellant shall pay costs and damages, it does not operate to stay a sale of mortgaged premises already decreed. 8. Independently of a rule of court, execution cannot issue in a decree for foreclosure of a mortgage in chancery for the balance left due after a sale of the mortgaged premises (Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499, recognized) ; and this (by opinion, however, of but a majority of the court), applies to the Territorial Court of Nebraska, as much as to the courts of States organized under the Judiciary Act of 1789.