Supreme Court of the United States, 1868

Railroad Companies v. Chamberlain

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 16, 1868 · Nelson

73 U.S. 748; 18 L. Ed. 859; 6 Wall. 748; 1867 U.S. LEXIS 1021 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Cushing, for the appellant in the first case ; Messrs. Cary and Carlisle, contra; the position of counsel being reversed in the cross-bill.

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Ames Realty Co. v. Big Indian Mining Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana 1906)
Kaumagraph Co. v. General Trade Mark Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1935)
Dickey v. Turner (6th Cir. 1931)
Mathis v. Ligon (10th Cir. 1930)
Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange (2d Cir. 1923)
Brown v. Crawford (District Court, D. Oregon 1918)
Ferguson v. Omaha & S. W. R. (8th Cir. 1915)
Ulman v. Iaeger's Adm'r (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia 1907)
Coltrane v. Templeton (4th Cir. 1901)
Gravenberg v. Laws (5th Cir. 1900)
Brooks v. Laurent (5th Cir. 1899)
Lincoln National Bank v. John Peirce Co. (N.Y. 1920)
Haberman v. Kaufer (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1900)
Shainwald v. Lewis (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1895)
Ralston v. Sharon (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1892)
Johnson v. Christian (Supreme Court of the United States 1888)
Barnes v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway (Supreme Court of the United States 1887)
Thompson v. McReynolds (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1887)
First Nat. Bank of Salem v. Salem Capital Flour-Mills Co. (United States Circuit Courts 1887)
Winter v. Swinburne (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin 1881)

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 NELSON

delivered the opinion of the .court

We think that the court erred in dismissing the cross-bill. It was filed for the purpose of enforcing the judgment, which was in the Circuit Court, and could be tiled in no other court, and was but ancillary to and dependent upon the original suit — an appropriate proceeding for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction. The lease was in the nature of a mortgage, and held only as collateral security, and followed the judgment. *

The decree in the first suit must be affirmed, and that in the second reversed, and the cause remitted to the court be-: low to enter a decree

In conformity with this opinion.

Freeman v. Howe et al., 24 Howard, 451.

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