The Party Line

Chief Justice Marshall:

It is also objected that some of the Defendants in error do not show a complete legal title under Terrell and Hawkins, for which reason they have not entitled themselves to a conveyance from Charles Simms; and that one of them, John Meiggs, has obtained a decree for 140 acres of land, although in the bill he claimed only 100 acres.

Regularly the Claimants who have only an equitable title ought to make those whose title they assert, as well as the person from whom they claim a conveyance, parties to the suit. For omitting to do so an original bill might be dismissed. But this is a bill to enjoin a judgment at law rendered for the Defendant in equity against the Plaintiffs. The bill must be brought in the Court of the United States, the judgment having been rendered in that Court. Its limited jurisdiction might possibly create some doubts of the propriety of making citizens of the same state with the Plaintiff, parties Defendants. In such a case, the Court may dispense with parties who would otherwise be required, and decree as between those before the Court, since its decree cannot affect those who are not parties to the suit.

Simms v. Guthrie, 13 U.S. 19, 24–25 (1815) (emphasis added).

Comments

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

Vaguely related: I was reading a turn of the century SCOTUS opinion and saw the “defendant in error” "circuit court of appeal in error" text construction.l several times in both the opinions and how the actual vote was written in the syllabus.

You don’t see that any more. When did this sentence construction drop off and why? It seemed a very clear way to convey something many modern opinions require much closer readings to infer.