Skip to content


Morrison Vs. Durr - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number122 U.S. 518
AppellantMorrison
RespondentDurr
Excerpt:
.....circumstances, being wanting in support of the charges of fraud, this court will not reverse the decree dismissing the bill. in equity. decree dismissing the bill. plaintiff appealed. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this is a suit in equity brought by several judgment creditors of the mercantile firm of kennedy & durr to set aside a sale of the goods of the firm to charles mcdermot under executions on judgments in his favor on the ground of fraud, and to have the property and its proceeds in the hands of mcdermot subjected to the payment of the amounts due them respectively. the bill called for answers under oath, and mcdermot answered accordingly, denying each and all of the allegations of fraud which were made against him. this being.....
Judgment:
Morrison v. Durr - 122 U.S. 518 (1887)
U.S. Supreme Court Morrison v. Durr, 122 U.S. 518 (1887)

Morrison v. Durr

Argued April 27-28, 1887

Decided May 27, 1887

122 U.S. 518

APPEAL FRAM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

In this case, the bill having called for answers under oath, and such answers having been made denying each and every allegation of fraud, and the evidence of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances, being wanting in support of the charges of fraud, this Court will not reverse the decree dismissing the bill.

In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit in equity brought by several judgment creditors of the mercantile firm of Kennedy & Durr to set aside a sale of the goods of the firm to Charles McDermot under executions on judgments in his favor on the ground of fraud, and to have the property and its proceeds in the hands of McDermot subjected to the payment of the amounts due them respectively. The bill called for answers under oath, and McDermot answered accordingly, denying each and all of the allegations of fraud which were made against him. This being responsive to the bill, his denials must be overcome by the satisfactory evidence of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to another, before the complainants can be granted the relief they ask. No such proof has been made. We have looked carefully through the whole evidence, and, while it is full of circumstances calculated to excite suspicion, there is not enough to justify us in reversing the decree of the court below dismissing

Page 122 U. S. 519

the bill. The questions involved are principally of fact, which it would serve no useful purpose to consider at length in an opinion.

The decree is affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //