Search Supreme Court Cases

HORSBURG V. BAKER, 26 U. S. 232 (1828)

U.S. Supreme Court

Horsburg v. Baker, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 232 232 (1828)

Horsburg v. Baker

26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 232


A court of chancery is not the proper tribunal to enforce a forfeiture, the remedy for the same being at law.

After an answer and discovery, the rule is that a suit brought merely for discovery cannot be revived. The object is obtained, and the plaintiff has no motive for reviving it.

A bill had been filed originally for discovery, and afterwards became a bill for relief. The relief prayed for, was a forfeiture, which might be enforced at law. Under such circumstances, it was proper to dismiss the bill so far as it sought for relief against the forfeiture, but the dismission should have been without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties, as an absolute dismission might be considered as a decree against the title the plaintiff claimed, and which, by the bill and the evidence obtained under it, he sought to establish.

The facts and the pleadings in the case are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 26 U. S. 233

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: HORSBURG V. BAKER, 26 U. S. 232 (1828)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw 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.