Medford v. Dorsey
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This cause had been referred to arbitrators by rule of court, who made a report in favour of the plaintiff, for 1850 dollars, provided the plaintiff should give to the defendant a bond of indemnity against Holt & Co. [assignees of McCall Medford] and two or three other persons.
Read the full summary
This cause had been referred to arbitrators by rule of court, who made a report in favour of the plaintiff, for 1850 dollars, provided the plaintiff should give to the defendant a bond of indemnity against Holt & Co. [assignees of McCall Medford] and two or three other persons. The report was returned, about four years ago, and it appears by the records, that, on motion, it was confirmed and decreed. [Case No. 6.647.] The defendant now obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated, the judgment having been improvidently entered, until the indemnity was given, and by…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice (PETERS, District Judge, absent).
This judgment, having been entered at a former court, though probably improvidently done, and might have been refused, had it been opposed, until the indemnity was given, cannot now be vacated. If there was error in entering it. the court, at a subsequent term, cannot set it aside, unless it was entered by the misprision of the clerk, by fraud, or the like. It is a hardship upon the defendant, to have his real estate bound by a judgment which it is improbable will ever be enforced; and there is possibly no way to help the defendant,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- President of the Bank of the United States v. MossSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Grames v. HawleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas · 1883
- Mason v. PearsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- United States v. WalshU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1884
- Parish v. GearWisconsin Supreme Court · 1842