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.

Vigel Vs. Hopp

Vigel vs Hopp

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1881
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84152

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
104 U.S. 441
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vigel

Respondent

Hopp

Excerpt

vigel v. hopp - 104 u.s. 441 (1881) u.s. supreme court vigel v. hopp, 104 u.s. 441 (1881) vigel v. hopp 104 u.s. 441 appeal from the supreme court of the district of columbia syllabus where the answer is responsive to the allegations of the complainant's bill, they must, to entitle him to relief, be sustained by the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to the testimony of another witness. the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this is a suit in equity begun by the appellee to set aside a deed executed by her to the appellant on the ground that the deed, though absolute on its face, was intended only as security for a debt, which has since been paid in full. there are numerous allegations of fraud, but the whole scope and purpose page 104 u. s. 442 of the suit is to establish a trust and get back the property in that way. the answer denies every allegation of fraud and trust, and insists that the deed was intended as an absolute conveyance, and not as security. this is responsive to the bill, and before the relief can be granted which is asked, these denials must be overcome by the satisfactory testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to another. 2 story, eq., sec. 1528. the appellee is the only witness in support of the bill, and the corroborating circumstances are not, in our opinion, sufficient to overcome the answer. it will serve no useful purpose to enter into analysis of the testimony. decree reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill.

Full Judgment

Vigel v. Hopp - 104 U.S. 441 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U.S. 441 (1881)

Vigel v. Hopp

104 U.S. 441

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SYLLABUS

Where the answer is responsive to the allegations of the complainant's bill, they must, to entitle him to relief, be sustained by the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to the testimony of another witness.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit in equity begun by the appellee to set aside a deed executed by her to the appellant on the ground that the deed, though absolute on its face, was intended only as security for a debt, which has since been paid in full. There are numerous allegations of fraud, but the whole scope and purpose

Page 104 U. S. 442

of the suit is to establish a trust and get back the property in that way. The answer denies every allegation of fraud and trust, and insists that the deed was intended as an absolute conveyance, and not as security. This is responsive to the bill, and before the relief can be granted which is asked, these denials must be overcome by the satisfactory testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to another. 2 Story, Eq., sec. 1528. The appellee is the only witness in support of the bill, and the corroborating circumstances are not, in our opinion, sufficient to overcome the answer. It will serve no useful purpose to enter into analysis of the testimony.

Decree reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial