Where the record contains only an agreed statement of facts, it
is not in conformity with the eleventh and thirty-first rules of
this Court, and the case will be dismissed.
Where different parties claimed a fund in the hands of the
marshal which had arisen from sales under an execution, a judgment
of the circuit court on rules as to whom the money should be paid
is not such a judgment as can be reexamined in this Court.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Page 59 U. S. 110
The record certified in this cause consists of "an agreed
statement of facts," which the parties submitted to the court on
the rules taken by the plaintiffs against the defendants and the
judgment rendered thereon, and a judgment rendered on a motion for
a new trial, being the proceedings after the submission of the
The case stated is that the plaintiffs recovered a judgment
against Victor Feste in the circuit court of the United States.
That an execution issued thereon, and a seizure was made of
immovable as well as movable property, which was sold and the
proceeds held by the marshal.
While these proceedings were pending, Madame Feste recovered, in
one of the state courts, a decree against her husband, Victor
Feste, for the separation of property and the amount of dowry
brought in marriage, and thereupon served a notice upon the
marshal, claiming to have satisfaction of her legal mortgage, in
preference to the execution creditor, from the moneys in his hands,
and obtained a rule from the court requiring him to answer her
claim. The plaintiffs, upon their part, as the case states, also
obtained a rule to enforce the payment of the money to them on
their execution. To settle these conflicting claims was the object
of the agreed case thus submitted to the court.
Two questions arise in limine,
either of which is, in
our opinion, decisive of this cause: 1st that this is not such a
transcript as will satisfy the 11th and 31st rules of this Court
under the decision of Keene v.
13 Pet. 459, and 2d that this is not
such a judgment as this Court can reexamine according to the
principle of Bayard v.
9 How. 530. And we agree with the
defendants upon both these questions.
The cause is dismissed with costs.