Benjamin Robbins Curtis

Name: Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court
Author: Benjamin Robbins Curtis

Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Benjamin Robbins Curtis. It explores elements such as the United States, Shields and decree.

Quotes from Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court (Benjamin Robbins Curtis)

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ It is apparent that, if it were in the power of a circuit court of the United States to make and enforce orders like this, both the article of the constitution respecting the judicial power, and the act of congress conferring jurisdiction on the circuit courts, would be practically disregarded in a most important particular. For in all suits in equity it would only be necessary that a citizen of one State should be found on the side, and a citizen of another State on the other, to enable the court to force into the cause all other persons, either citizens or aliens. No such power exists ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ New parties cannot be introduced into a cause by a cross-bill. If the plaintiff desires to make new parties, he amends his bill, and makes them. If the interest of the defendant requires their presence, he takes the objection of nonjoinder, and the complainant is forced to amend, or his bill is dismissed. If, at the hearing, the court finds that an indispensable party is not on the record, it refuses to proceed. These remedies cover the whole subject, and a cross-bill to make new parties is not only improper and irregular, but wholly unnecessary. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ Persons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it. These persons are commonly termed necessary parties; but if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and do complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ To strike out the entire substance and prayer of a bill, and insert a new case by way of amendment, leaves the record unnecessarily incumbered with the original proceedings, increases expenses, and complicates the suit; it is far better to require the complainant to begin anew. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ Under the privilege of amending, a party is not to be permitted to make a new bill. Amendments can only be allowed when the bill is found defective in proper parties, in its prayer for relief, or in the omission or mistake of some fact or circumstance connected with the substance of the case, but not forming the substance itself, or for putting in issue new matter to meet allegations in the answer. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ The court allowed the above amendment. So that the bill thereafter presented not only two aspects, but two diamertrically opposite prayers for relief, resting upon necessarily inconsistent cases; the one being that the court would declare the contract rescinded, for imposition and other causes, and the other, that the court would declare it so free from all exception as to be entitled to its aid by a decree for specific performance. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ But this bill also was fatally defective, as respects parties. Thomas R. Shields, and his other five indorsers, had such a direct and immediate interest in the contract of compromise, and that interest was so entire and indivisible, that, without their presence, no decree on the subject could be made. In Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan, 2 Wheat. 290, a bill was brought by the heirs of a deceased vendor, to compel the specific performance of a contract to purchase lands. It was objected that the deceased had a child who was not made a party. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court

“ It concludes with a prayer that the act of compromise may be declared to have been improperly procured, and may be annulled and set aside, and that the defendants may be decreed to pay such of the notes, bearing their indorsement, as may fall due during the progress of the suit, and for general relief. ”

Benjamin Robbins Curtis

Summary

Quotes from Shields v. Barrow — Opinion of the Court (Benjamin Robbins Curtis)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature