SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/79556 |
Court | US Supreme Court |
Decided On | 1836 |
Case Number | 35 U.S. 408 |
Appellant | Packer |
Respondent | Nixon |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' )include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]packer v. nixon - 35 u.s. 408 (1836) u.s. supreme court packer v. nixon, 35 u.s. 10 pet. 408 408 (1836) packer v. nixon 35 u.s. (10 pet.) 408 on certificate of division of opinion from the circuit court of the united states for the eastern district of pennsylvania syllabus questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the act of 1802, chap. 32. at january term, 1835, this case was before the court, 34 u......Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' )include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Packer v. Nixon
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Syllabus
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, 34 U. S. 9 Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 13include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 14include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 15include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, inter alia, that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 16include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 17include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter in pais not verified by affidavit.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 18include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 19include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 20include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part?
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 21include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 22include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
"Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant"
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 23include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ought to be granted or not.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 24include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
"And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 25include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 26include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court."
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 27include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 28include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 29include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of Harrison v. Henry Nixon, in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 30include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part?
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 31include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 32include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
"Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant."
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 33include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
ought to be granted?
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 34include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 35include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 36include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in 34 U. S. 9 Pet. 540.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 37include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 38include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: viz., 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 39include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
"Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant."
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 40include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="409"> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="410"> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a class="page-number" id="411"> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a href="/case/79511/harrison-vs-nixon#540"> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'packer-vs-nixon', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Packer Vs Nixon - Citation 79556 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '79556', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => '35 U.S. 408', 'appellant' => 'Packer', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Packer Vs. Nixon', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'US Supreme Court', 'court_type' => 'FN', 'decidedon' => '1836-01-01', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> </p> <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> </p> <p> <b> </b> </p> <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> </p> <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> </p> <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> </p> <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. </p> <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. </p> <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. </p> <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. </p> <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. </p> <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> </p> <p> </p> <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. </p> <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. </p> <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. </p> <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. </p> <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: </p> <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" </p> <p> ought to be granted or not. </p> <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> </p> <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." </p> <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. </p> <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. </p> <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: </p> <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? </p> <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> ought to be granted? </p> <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity </p> <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> </p> <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. </p> <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. </p> <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: </p> <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." </p> <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. </p> <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Nixon', 'sub' => null, 'link' => '/cases/federal/us/35/408/', 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'packer-vs-nixon' $args = array( (int) 0 => '79556', (int) 1 => 'packer-vs-nixon' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/79556/packer-vs-nixon' $ctype = '' $date = array( (int) 0 => 'Jan', (int) 1 => '01', (int) 2 => '1836' ) $content = array( (int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div> Packer v. Nixon - 35 U.S. 408 (1836) <br/> <span> U.S. Supreme Court Packer v. Nixon, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 408 408 (1836) </span> <p> <b> Packer v. Nixon </b> ', (int) 1 => ' <p> <b> 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 408 </b> ', (int) 2 => ' <p> <b> </b> ', (int) 3 => ' <p> <em> ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT </em> ', (int) 4 => ' <p> <em> OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA </em> ', (int) 5 => ' <p> <em> </em> <em> Syllabus </em> ', (int) 6 => ' <p> Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity causes, which depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of such particular case are not questions which can be certified on a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court under the Act of 1802, chap. 32. ', (int) 7 => ' <p> At January term, 1835, this case was before the Court, <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 483, on an appeal, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed, without a decision on the merits, for the purpose of amending the proceedings by entering an allegation of the domicile of the testator the construction of whose will was the subject of controversy, and introducing proof in relation thereto and also to allow the introduction of other parties claiming the estate of the testator. ', (int) 8 => ' <p> After the coming in of the mandate of this Court, certain other proceedings took place in the circuit court; an amended bill was filed by the original complainant containing the allegation of domicile, which was considered necessary by the Supreme Court, and numerous petitions, to be allowed to become parties, were presented by other persons. ', (int) 9 => ' <p> Among these, Janet Jones, and Mary Poole, filed their bill claiming the whole estate of the testator as heirs at law and next of kin of John Aspden of London, who they aver to have been heir at law of the testator, and as such entitled to his whole estate, real and personal, under his will. ', (int) 10 => ' <p> John A. Brown also filed a bill claiming the whole personal estate of the testator as the administrator of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 11 => ' <p> He took out letters of administration in Pennsylvania upon the estate of John Aspden as the attorney of the children of John Aspden of London. ', (int) 12 => ' <p> Henry Nixon, the defendant, filed an answer to all these bills, and subsequently, under leave to amend his answer and plead, filed an amended answer with certain pleas thereunto annexed. ', (int) 13 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 409 </a> ', (int) 14 => ' <p> ', (int) 15 => ' <p> In these pleas he averred certain proceedings to have taken place in the Court of Chancery and Court of Exchequer in England in which he alleged, <em> inter alia, </em> that Janet Jones and Mary Poole instituted those suits for the same subject matter and that John A. Brown's bill was in the same right and also for the same matter. ', (int) 16 => ' <p> No affidavit was made to these pleas by the executor, as they were filed at the instance of the counsel of one of the parties in the execution of a purpose to allow all matters which were claimed as important to the full consideration and proceedings in the case to be brought forward and exhibited for the consideration of the court. ', (int) 17 => ' <p> On 14 November, 1835, the counsel for Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones and the counsel for John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London moved for a rule to show cause why the pleas in bar should not be stricken off as containing averments of matter <em> in pais </em> not verified by affidavit. ', (int) 18 => ' <p> On the same day, the counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire moved for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which bill or petition they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other. ', (int) 19 => ' <p> On 6 January, 1836, on the hearing of these motions, the following questions occurred upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed: ', (int) 20 => ' <p> 1st. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 21 => ' <p> 2d. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 22 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant" ', (int) 23 => ' <p> ought to be granted or not. ', (int) 24 => ' <p> "And the said judges being so opposed in opinion upon the questions aforesaid, the same were then and there, at the request of Mr. Ingersoll, counsel for Henry Nixon, and Mr. Sergeant, counsel for John Aspden of Lancashire, stated under the direction of the judges, and ', (int) 25 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 410 </a> ', (int) 26 => ' <p> ordered to be certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, to be finally decided by the said Supreme Court." ', (int) 27 => ' <p> MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. ', (int) 28 => ' <p> This was the case of certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, certified to this Court under the Act of Congress of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32, sec. 6. ', (int) 29 => ' <p> The case was formerly before this Court, and the decision will be found reported under the name of <em> Harrison v. Henry Nixon, </em> in 9 Pet. 483. Upon the mandate in that case being returned to the circuit court, further proceedings were had in conformity thereto, and in the course of those proceedings the questions now propounded to this Court upon the certificate arose. They are as follows: ', (int) 30 => ' <p> 1. Whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so, to what part? ', (int) 31 => ' <p> 2. Whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 32 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole, and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the election and abandon the other: Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 33 => ' <p> ought to be granted? ', (int) 34 => ' <p> We are of opinion that the questions are not of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 1802, ch. 32. They are questions respecting the practice of the court in equity ', (int) 35 => ' <p> <a> Page 35 U. S. 411 </a> ', (int) 36 => ' <p> causes, and depend upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the court in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case. But it is to be understood that in the present case, this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court, as stated in <span> <a> 34 U. S. 9 </a> </span> Pet. 540. ', (int) 37 => ' <p> We shall accordingly direct this opinion to be certified to the circuit court. ', (int) 38 => ' <p> This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, and on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the said circuit court upon the following questions: <em> viz., </em> 1st, whether it is necessary that an affidavit be made to the pleas in bar to the petition of John A. Brown, or to any part thereof, and if so to what part? 2d, whether the rule moved for by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Sergeant on 14 November, 1835, in the following words: ', (int) 39 => ' <p> "Mr. Sergeant, for John Aspden of Lancashire, moves for a rule on Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Jones, and on John A. Brown, administrator of John Aspden of London, to show cause why they should not be required to elect on which petition or bill they will proceed, and to abide by the one elected and abandon the other; Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, for the executor Mr. Nixon, makes the same motion as Mr. Sergeant." ', (int) 40 => ' <p> And these questions were argued by counsel, on consideration whereof it is the opinion of this Court that neither of these questions is of such a nature as are contemplated to be certified to this Court under the Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 32. That they are questions respecting the practice of the court in the application of the general rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings to the circumstances of each particular case, and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to answer the same. But it is to be understood that in the present case this general discretion is subject to the former order of this Court in regard to the making of parties, and other proceedings contained in the mandate, when the cause was remanded at the last January term of this Court. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that this opinion be certified to the said circuit court and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings. ', (int) 41 => ' <br/> <br/> </div></body></html>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 42 $i = (int) 41include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109