Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Wallen Vs. Williams

Wallen vs Williams

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1812
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78554
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
11 U.S. 278

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wallen

Respondent

Williams

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

.....chief justice marshall. the writ of error is to the original decree, which did not award this writ of habere facias. it was awarded by a subsequent order of the court, to which no writ of error issued. todd, j. the attachment to compel a performance of the decree was unavailing, and upon the return of it, the habere facias was issued in conformity with the practice in that state, as admitted by the counsel on both sides in the court below. it was ordered as a matter of course, and no objection was made. if this motion should prevail, it will make the writ of error operate as a supersedeas, contrary to the intention of the act of congress. motion overruled.

Full Judgment

Wallen v. Williams - 11 U.S. 278 (1812)
U.S. Supreme Court Wallen v. Williams, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 278 278 (1812)

Wallen v. Williams

11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 278

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SYLLABUS

Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Tennessee to reverse a decree in chancery. The court below had issued a writ of habere facias possessionem to enforce its decree. The writ of error was too late to be a supersedeas to the decree.

Jones, for the Plaintiff in error, now moved to quash the writ of habere facias as irregular, and contended that the Court below, sitting as a Court of Chancery under the laws of Tennessee, could only enforce by execution decrees for the payment of money, and cited Tennessee Laws, ed. 1807, p. 158, § 2.

Page 11 U. S. 279

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.

The writ of error is to the original decree, which did not award this writ of habere facias. It was awarded by a subsequent order of the Court, to which no writ of error issued.

TODD, J.

The attachment to compel a performance of the decree was unavailing, and upon the return of it, the habere facias was issued in conformity with the practice in that state, as admitted by the counsel on both sides in the court below. It was ordered as a matter of course, and no objection was made. If this motion should prevail, it will make the writ of error operate as a supersedeas, contrary to the intention of the act of Congress.

Motion overruled.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial