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.

Hershfield Vs. Griffith

Hershfield vs Griffith

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1873
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/82477

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
85 U.S. 657
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hershfield

Respondent

Griffith

Excerpt

hershfield v. griffith - 85 u.s. 657 (1873) u.s. supreme court hershfield v. griffith, 85 u.s. 18 wall. 657 657 (1873) hershfield v. griffith 85 u.s. (18 wall.) 657 appeal from the supreme court of the territory of montana syllabus the preceding case affirmed, the case here having been a proceeding to obtain satisfaction of a mortgage. griffith sued starr in one of the district territorial courts of montana on a mortgage on certain property, the suit being brought under the civil practice act, quoted in the preceding case, an act passed under circumstances there set forth, and which it is necessary for the reader to possess himself of in order to understand at all this case. one hershfield intervened, asserting that he had a mortgage on the property of a date prior to that sued on by griffith. the court gave judgment in favor of griffith, and hershfield took the case to the supreme court of the territory, which affirmed the judgment below. hershfield now brought the case here by appeal, assigning among other errors the blending of equity and common law jurisdiction. page 85 u. s. 658 mr. justice bradley delivered the opinion of the court. the only point made in this case is that being one of equity jurisdiction, it was tried by jury as an action at law. this being so, it would seem that under the seventh article of amendments to the constitution, it should have been removed by writ of error, and not by appeal. but that aside, page 85 u. s. 659 we have just decided in hornbuckle v. toombs that equitable as well as legal relief may be pursued by the form of action prescribed by the territorial legislature. there is no complaint that this was not done, or that substantial justice was not administered between the parties. judgment affirmed. dissenting, justices clifford, davis, and strong.

Full Judgment

Hershfield v. Griffith - 85 U.S. 657 (1873)
U.S. Supreme Court Hershfield v. Griffith, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 657 657 (1873)

Hershfield v. Griffith

85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 657

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE TERRITORY OF MONTANA

SYLLABUS

The preceding case affirmed, the case here having been a proceeding to obtain satisfaction of a mortgage.

Griffith sued Starr in one of the district territorial courts of Montana on a mortgage on certain property, the suit being brought under the Civil Practice Act, quoted in the preceding case, an act passed under circumstances there set forth, and which it is necessary for the reader to possess himself of in order to understand at all this case. One Hershfield intervened, asserting that he had a mortgage on the property of a date prior to that sued on by Griffith. The court gave judgment in favor of Griffith, and Hershfield took the case to the supreme court of the territory, which affirmed the judgment below. Hershfield now brought the case here by appeal, assigning among other errors the blending of equity and common law jurisdiction.

Page 85 U. S. 658

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only point made in this case is that being one of equity jurisdiction, it was tried by jury as an action at law. This being so, it would seem that under the Seventh Article of Amendments to the Constitution, it should have been removed by writ of error, and not by appeal. But that aside,

Page 85 U. S. 659

we have just decided in Hornbuckle v. Toombs that equitable as well as legal relief may be pursued by the form of action prescribed by the territorial legislature. There is no complaint that this was not done, or that substantial justice was not administered between the parties.

Judgment affirmed.

Dissenting, JUSTICES CLIFFORD, DAVIS, and STRONG.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial