New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Stafford

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Texas.

Although the complainants were not the same as in the preceding case of the Union Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford and Wife, yet the respondents were the same and the subject-matter was a breach of the same transaction. The only difference is stated fully in the opinion of the court; and by agreement of parties the two cases were consolidated in the court below and to be argued together.

It was argued by Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General) for the appellants, and Mr. Harris for the appellees.

Mr. Crittenden contended,

1. That the court below erred in dismissing the bill for the want of proper parties, and cited 6 Wheat., 559; 10 Id., 167; 11 Id., 133, 134. Act of Congress, 28 Feb., 1839; 5 Stat. at L., 321, § 1.

2. That there was no proof of Mrs. Stafford's minority, and if there were, that she afterwards confirmed the mortgage.

3. That there was no proof of her matrimonial or dotal rights or their amount.

4. That the statute of limitations could not apply. No court of equity would sanction a fraudulent removal of the property with a view to found a place of limitations upon it. 2 Story Eq., 188, ch. 23, § 903. Eden on Injunc., ch. 16, pp. 349, 350.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.