Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia,
49 U.S. 586 (1850)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, 49 U.S. 8 How. 586 586 (1850)

Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia

49 U.S. (8 How.) 586


Some of the distinctions stated between bills of review, of revivor, and supplemental and original bills in chancery.

This Court, as an appellate court, has the power to allow amendments to be made to the record before it, although the general practice has been to remand the case to the circuit court for that purpose.

When a cause is brought before this Court on a division in opinion by the judges of the circuit court, the points certified only are before it. The cause should remain on the docket of the circuit court, and at their discretion may be prosecuted.

If the jurisdiction of a circuit court be not shown in the proceedings in the case, its judgment is erroneous, and liable to be reversed; but it is not an absolute nullity.

But when an amendment to the record was made by consent of counsel in this Court, which amendment set forth the jurisdiction, a mandate containing that amendment ought to have prevented any subsequent objection to the jurisdiction in the circuit court.

A decree for a sale, made with the approbation of counsel filed in court, removes all preceding technical objections.

Where a party interested consented to the sale of property, afterwards took the benefit of the insolvent law, and at a subsequent period counsel representing him filed a consent decree to complete the sale, the trustee having taken no steps for two years to connect himself with the proceedings in court, and then having suffered fifteen years more to elapse without moving in the business, it is too late for such trustee to object to the consent decree.

So, also, the holders of bridge bills, who had no specific lien upon a bridge, must be considered to have lost their right to impugn the sale as fraudulent after so long a lapse of time.

Page 49 U. S. 587

As the decision of the court turned upon some collateral points, it is not necessary to state all the facts in the case, which were extremely complicated. The Reporter therefore refers the reader to the opinion of the court, which was delivered by MR. JUSTICE McLEAN and which contains a recital of all the facts necessary to an understanding of the points decided.

Page 49 U. S. 605

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.