Legal Opinion

Mulqueen v. Schlichter Jute Cordage Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Decided May 14, 1901PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Ejectment. On motion by defendant for judgment non obstante veredicto.

1Opinion of the Court

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The principal question raised and argued upon this motion cannot be considered by a federal court in this action. The plaintiffs haye a complete legal title to an undivided x/2i of the land described in the writ, and, for the present, this title must prevail. The defense set up is purely equitable, and, while it would be admissible in a Pennsylvania court, it cannot be entertained by a court of the United States in an action at law. The precise point was decided in Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212, 4 L. Ed. 372. See, also, Montejo v. Owen, 14 Blatchf. 324,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Robinson v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
  2. Montejo v. OwenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1877
  3. Kircher v. MurrayU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Texas · 1893
  4. Snyder v. PharoUnited States Circuit Court · 1885
  5. Terry v. DavyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Luminous Unit Co. v. Freeman-Sweet Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1924
  2. Schlichter Jute Cordage Co. v. MulqueenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906
  3. McNee v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API