Summary

Joseph P. Bradley County of Warren v. Marcy — Opinion of the Court

Are the bonds so absolutely void, as against the county, as to be invalid under all circumstances, even in the hands of a bona fide holder for value? 2. If not, was the commencement and pendency of the suit for having the proceedings of the supervisors declared void, and preventing the issue of the bonds, such notice to all persons of their invalidity, as to defeat the title of a purchaser for value before maturity, having no actual notice of the suit, or of the objection to the bonds?
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley County of Warren v. Marcy — Opinion of the Court

The learned Chancellor gave the history and grounds of the general doctrine of lis pendens, in 1815, in the case of Murray v. Ballou (1 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 566) , which is the leading American case on the subject, and deserves the careful study of every student of law. The fundamental proposition was stated in these words: 'The established rule is, that a lis pendens, duly prosecuted, and not collusive, is notice to a purchaser so as to affect and bind his interest by the decree; and the lis pendens begins from the service of the subpoena after the bill is filed.' p.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley County of Warren v. Marcy — Opinion of the Court

A bill in equity was filed to prevent such subscription and issue, and was successful. The legislature then passed a healing act, and the bonds were issued. A year after this, another bill was filed to have both the act and the bonds declared void, but was dismissed. Two years after this dismissal, a bill of review was filed to reverse the last decree; and it was reversed, and the bonds and the healing act itself were declared void. This court held that, notwithstanding all this, the bona fide holder of the bonds was entitled to recover upon them.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature