Lockhart v. Leeds
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. The appellant filed his bill in this suit in the proper court of New Mexico for the purpose of obtaining relief against the defendants mentioned therein. The defendants demurred on' several grounds, among which was that the complainant’s remedy, if any, was at law, and that the ■ bill did not state a case for a court of equity.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO. The appellant filed his bill in this suit in the proper court of New Mexico for the purpose of obtaining relief against the defendants mentioned therein. The defendants demurred on' several grounds, among which was that the complainant’s remedy, if any, was at law, and that the ■ bill did not state a case for a court of equity. The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, and the judgment of dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Mexico, and the complainant thereupon appealed to this court. -Among other .things…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Peckham,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court..One phase of this controversy has already béen. before this court in Lockhart v. Johnson, 181 U. S. 516, which was an ac tion of ejectment brought by the plaintiff (who is the complainant herein) to recover possession of the mine above mentioned from the defendants herein. It was there held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action, as the facts showed that he had no legal title, and that the remedy he might have, if any, was in equity.
Upon the trial of the ejectment action the plaintiff…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hayward v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Erhardt v. BoaroSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Georgia v. StantonSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Hobson v. Heirs of McArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- English, Smith, MacKall & Hoffman v. FoxallSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Sol A. Dann, John H. Neville and Louise A. Turek v. Studebaker-Packard Corporation, Harold E. Churchill, Hugh J. Ferry, and A. J. PortaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
- Kenneth Adams v. Terrel H. Bell, Individually, and as Secretary of the Department of EducationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Seeley v. CornellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1934
- R. D. MacKintosh v. Estate of Henry M. MarksCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
- Maurel v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.