McMicken v. Perin - 59 U.S. 507 (1855)


U.S. Supreme Court

McMicken v. Perin, 59 U.S. 18 How. 507 507 (1855)

McMicken v. Perin

59 U.S. (18 How.) 507

Syllabus

A purchase of an interest in property by an attorney, made after judgment has been obtained, is not forbidden by the laws of Louisiana.

And where money is borrowed to make the purchase, the lender of the money is estopped from pleading illegality in the purchase and thus retaining the property which had been conveyed to himself as security for the loan.

In the contract between him and the borrower there was no illegality.

No objections to a master's report can be made which were not taken before the master, nor after a decree pro confesso can a defendant go before the master without a special order, but the accounts are to be taken ex parte.

An appeal will not lie from the refusal of a court to open a former decree, nor have the circuit courts power to set aside their decrees in equity, on motion, after the term at which they were rendered.

Page 59 U. S. 508

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.