Mandeville v. Burt,
Annotate this Case
33 U.S. 256 (1834)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Mandeville v. Burt, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 256 256 (1834)
Mandeville v. Burt
33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 256
In the Circuit Court of Alexandria in 1817, several suits were brought against sundry individuals who had associated to form a bank called the Merchants' Bank of Alexandria. The proceedings were regularly carried on in one of them, which the defendants appealed. On a hearing, the decree was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with certain principles prescribed in the decree of reversal. It appears that decrees were pronounced in all the cases, though regular proceedings were had only in the case of Romulus Riggs. Appeals were entered in these cases from the decrees of the court. Under such circumstances, the Court can only reverse the decree in each case for want of a bill.
The whole business appearing to have been conducted in the confidence that the pleadings in the case of Romulus Riggs could be introduced into the other causes, the cases were remanded to the circuit court with directions to allow bills to be filed and to proceed thereon according to law.
In the present cases, there is an additional objection to the decree in each of them, which is that no bill was ever filed. It appears, from the proceedings, that it was agreed, that the answers in the case of Riggs, were to be filed in these cases; it is contended, that that was to be done when bills were filed.
The appellants insist in these cases, on the same objections to the decree of the circuit court, which were urged in the case of Riggs, with that of a want of a bill.