Jackson v. Hale
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Lawrence, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Lee, and Mr. Seward, for the defendants in error.
Mr. Lawrence, for the plaintiff in error, made the following points.
First. The Judge of the District Court erred in ruling upon the admission of testimony, that a depositary, when there is a joint interest in the deposit, may change the joint interest of depositors into an interest in severalty, by mere setting apart, without delivery made.
Second. The court erred in holding, that a depositor, having a joint interest in one description of property, his depositary could confer a title upon him, to the extent of such joint interest, from deposits of a different description; or that if his deposits were in part winter wheat, &c., his depositary might set apart to him the spring wheat of other depositors, and such act of the depositary would give title.
Third. Testimony was improperly admitted, that 'the property rose in value after it was taken in replevin,' and 'that the agent of the plaintiff was told that the wheat belonged to parties,' in whom defendants had pleaded property-as also the evidence to contradict the receipt.
Fourth. The Judge of the District Court should not have decided to refuse a new trial, if defendants would consent to remit a part of the recovery for detention, when a recovery had been secured by testimony taken under objection.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.