Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U.S. 222 (1884)

U.S. Supreme Court

Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U.S. 222 (1884)

Jenkins v. Loewenthal

Submitted January 7, 1884

Decided January 21, 1884

110 U.S. 222

Syllabus

When the record discloses two defenses to an action brought in a state court, one presenting a federal question and one presenting no federal question, either of which if sustained was a complete defense to the suit, and that the state court gave judgment in favor of the defendant on both, and the cause is brought here by writ of error, this Court will affirm the judgment below without considering the federal question.

U.S. Supreme Court

Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U.S. 222 (1884)

Jenkins v. Loewenthal

Submitted January 7, 1884

Decided January 21, 1884

110 U.S. 222

I

N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

When the record discloses two defenses to an action brought in a state court, one presenting a federal question and one presenting no federal question, either of which if sustained was a complete defense to the suit, and that the state court gave judgment in favor of the defendant on both, and the cause is brought here by writ of error, this Court will affirm the judgment below without considering the federal question.

MR. JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by Robert E. Jenkins, as assignee in bankruptcy of Samuel J. Walker, a bankrupt, to recover certain lands conveyed by the bankrupt to Eli Kinney, on the alleged ground that the conveyances, though absolute on their face, were intended tended as mortgages. Two defenses were interposed among others, one that the defendants, who are the present owners of the property, are innocent purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice of any outstanding equities in the assignee or the bankrupt, and the other that the suit was not brought within two years after the alleged cause of action accrued to the assignee. Rev.Stat. § 5057. Either of these defenses, if sustained, bars the action. The second involves a federal question, the other does not. The court in its decree sustained them both, and, among other things, found as a fact that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. As this finding is broad enough to maintain the decree, even though the federal question involved in the other defense was decided wrong, we affirm the decree without considering that question or expressing any opinion upon it. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, sustains this practice.

Affirmed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

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.