Open main menu


Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

79 U.S. 440

Hennessy  v.  Sheldon

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana.

Madame Dreville filed her petition in the court below against one Walker, in which she alleged that he, Walker, was indebted to her in the sum of $5492, and she showed how this debt originated; how the note on which it was founded came into her possession; how much of it has been paid, and how much remained due. She further set forth that a mortgage was given by him on certain real estate, which she described, to secure the payment of the note, and she filed as exhibits, with her petition, copies of the note and the credits indorsed on it, and of the mortgage with its acknowledgment and certificate of its record.

She prayed that Walker might be cited to appear before the court, and that after legal proceedings had, be condemned to pay the sum which she claimed with interest and costs and five per cent. lawyers' fees, as stipulated in the mortgage; and that the plantation mentioned in the mortgage be adjudged and decreed to be subject to the payment of said debt, interests, and costs. Then followed a separate prayer for general relief.

There was for answer, first a short general denial of all the allegations of the petition; and afterwards a long supplemental answer, as it was called, in the nature of a cross-bill, setting up usury, and a cross demand, which was called by the court 'a reconvention.' This latter pleading was by order of the court, afterwards stricken out, apparently on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. This, however, was done after a distinct hearing on that subject.

The final judgment or decree of the court was:

'That plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum claimed, with interest, costs, and lawyers' fees; with privilege and mortgage on the property described in the notarial act, passed before Ad. Mazurean, notary, a certified copy of which is made part hereof.'

Walker brought the case here on error.

The question considered by the court was, whether the case was properly brought here by that means, and whether it should not have come by appeal?


Mr. T. J. Durant, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Miles Taylor, contra:


Mr. Justice MILLER, having stated the case in the way above given, delivered the opinion of the court.

NotesEdit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).