Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
JOUAN v. DIVOLL
154 U.S. 65738 L. Ed. 1092·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
JOUAN v. DIVOLL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
No. 485.
Submitted December 22, 1879.
Decided January 5, 1880.
This decree is affirmed on the facts on the various points stated in.the opinion of the court.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
We think the evidence shows that Divoll was induced to make his purchase from Cooke on the representation of Jouan that Cooke was the owner of one-half the claim. For this reason Jouan is now estopped from denying Cooke’s title. As Jouan and Cooke have settled all their disputes, and Jouan has been released by Cooke from all further liability to him under the original assignment, Cooke’s representatives are not necessary parties to this suit. This objection does not seem to have been made below.
Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellant.
Mr. J. G. Kimball for appellee. -
By the terms of the assignment to Cooke he was bound to pay all costs and expenses incurred in prosecuting the claim. It was right, therefore, to deduct from Divoll’s share of the money recovered a corresponding share of the expenses.
The decree is Affirmed.