Wallen v. Williams, 11 U.S. 278 (1812)
U.S. Supreme Court
Wallen v. Williams, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 278 278 (1812)Wallen v. Williams
11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 278
Syllabus
Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Tennessee to reverse a decree in chancery. The court below had issued a writ of habere facias possessionem to enforce its decree. The writ of error was too late to be a supersedeas to the decree.
Jones, for the Plaintiff in error, now moved to quash the writ of habere facias as irregular, and contended that the Court below, sitting as a Court of Chancery under the laws of Tennessee, could only enforce by execution decrees for the payment of money, and cited Tennessee Laws, ed. 1807, p. 158, § 2.
U.S. Supreme Court
Wallen v. Williams, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 278 278 (1812)Wallen v. Williams
11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 278
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Syllabus
Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Tennessee to reverse a decree in chancery. The court below had issued a writ of habere facias possessionem to enforce its decree. The writ of error was too late to be a supersedeas to the decree.
Jones, for the Plaintiff in error, now moved to quash the writ of habere facias as irregular, and contended that the Court below, sitting as a Court of Chancery under the laws of Tennessee, could only enforce by execution decrees for the payment of money, and cited Tennessee Laws, ed. 1807, p. 158, § 2.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
The writ of error is to the original decree, which did not award this writ of habere facias. It was awarded by a subsequent order of the Court, to which no writ of error issued.
TODD, J.
The attachment to compel a performance of the decree was unavailing, and upon the return of it, the habere facias was issued in conformity with the practice in that state, as admitted by the counsel on both sides in the court below. It was ordered as a matter of course, and no objection was made. If this motion should prevail, it will make the writ of error operate as a supersedeas, contrary to the intention of the act of Congress.
Motion overruled.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
