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.
MATTOON v. McGREW, 1884 — 112 U.S. 713 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
MATTOON v. McGREW
112 U.S. 71328 L. Ed. 824·Supreme Court of the United States·1884
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
MATTOON v. McGREW.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Argued November 23, 1884.
Decided December 15, 1884.
JELitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 IT. S. 722, was decided, after elaborate argument and careful consideration, and is adhered to by the court.
Mr. S. S. Henkle for appellant.
Mr. Leigh Robinson and Mr. James Lowndes for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal because the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $2,500. From the facts appearing in the record, supplemented as they have been by affidavits as to value, we are satisfied this motion should be overruled, and it is so ordered.
It is conceded in the brief filed- for the appellee “ that the essential facts in this case are substantially like those in Hitz v. The National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722.” That case was decided on full consideration after an elaborate argument on both sides, and we are satisfied with the conclusion then reached. We therefore reverse this decree, on that authority, and remand the cause, with instructions to enter a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, enjoining the appellee McGrew from selling, or attempting to sell,- the marital right or interest of the. husband of the appellant in the property described in the bilk for the paymeht of his judgment against the husband. Reversed.