JOHN JOSEPH ALBRIGHT & Others v. EMERY

JOHN JOSEPH ALBRIGHT & Others v. EMERY. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Argued December 12th and 13th, 1883. Decided January 7th, 1884. A decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in general term, affirmed, on the facts. Mr. A. 8. Worthington for appellants. Mr. John W. Joss and Mr. 8. 8. IlmTcle for appellee. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Blatoheord] Mr. Justice Blatoheord delivered the opinion of the court. In a suit in equity brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, by the firm of Langdon, Albright & Company, against Samuel Emery, Senior, and five other persons, that court, in special .term, made a decree setting aside an assigmnent made to two of the defendants, directing tha manner in which receivers in the suit should .distribute a fund in their hands, directing the clerk to pay to the plaintiffs the whole of a fund in the registry .of the court, directing the defendant Emery to pay to the plaintiffs $1,232.37, with interest from July 14th, 1879, adjudging Emery to be indebted to the plaintiffs in the further sum of $14,818.98, with interest from July 20th, 1877, and the defendant Sailer to be liable to them for the same amount, and awarding execution as at law, therefor, against them or either of them. From that decree Emery appealed to that court in general term, in his own behalf, Sailer declining, in open court, to appeal. ' The court in general term made a decree reversing the decree in special term so far as it chargéd Emery, and dismissing the bill as to him. From that decree the plaintiffs have appealed to this court. It is not necessary to consider the question whether the bill, if demurred to, or if the facts alleged in it were sustained by the proofs, would lie, as setting forth a case for the cognizance of a court in equity, because we are of opinion that- the proofs do not establish the allegation^ of the bill, so far as they affect Emery,-in respect to any relief prayed ag'inst him in the bill, or any relief granted against him by the court in special term,, and that no part of the relief contended for in the assignments of error made by the appellants is warranted by the proofs. The decree of the cüv/rt m general term is affirmed.