# Laflin v. Herrington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
66 U.S. 326
Laflin v. Herrington
Walter Laflin filed his bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, against the widow and heirs of James Herrington and the Illinois Central Railroad Company, complaining that one William Stuart obtained judgment in the Circuit Court for Kane county, Illinois, 9th June, 1837, against James Herrington, for $646 72, and issued execution thereon within one year thereafter, which was returned by the sheriff nulla bona; that afterwards James Herrington died, leaving a widow and ten children, (the defendants,) the widow becoming his administratrix; that James Herrington died seized of certain described lands; that afterwards Stuart notified the administratrix of the judgment and of his intention to issue an alias execution; that he did issue such execution, levied upon the land, and after due advertisement it was sold to William H. Adams for $1,378 42; that Adams being a friend and relative of Stuart, made the purchase for him; that Augustus M. Herrington, one of the heirs of the deceased James Herrington, proposed to redeem the land for himself and the other heirs, but in order to overreach an outstanding title for a fractional interest, requested an assignment of the certificate of sale to be made by Adams; that Adams made an assignment with a blank for the name of the assignee, and instructed his attorney, Burgess, to deliver it to Herrington when the money was paid; that Herrington (though he knew that Adams had bought for Stuart) got the assignment from Farnsworth, the partner of Burgess; that he got the paper by falsely representing that the land had been incorrectly described, and gave his notes for $2,378 42, payable to Burgess & Farnsworth, agreeing, that if the arrangement should not prove satisfactory to Stuart it should be void, and the certificate, with the assignment, be returned to Farnsworth; that Adams repudiated the arrangement as soon as he heard of it, and wrote to Stuart, who immediately replied, expressing his disapproval in a letter which was read to Herrington before the expiration of the time for redemption; that afterwards, on the 9th of October, 1856, Adams sold and transferred the certificate of sale to Julius Smith, who, on the 20th of November, 1856, conveyed to the complainant; and that the heirs of Herrington in December, 1856, conveyed an undivided interest to the Illinois Central Railroad Company. The bill prays that the defendants be required to deliver up the certificate of sale so that the assignment may be cancelled; that they be restrained by injunction from placing the certificate on record, from filling up the blank in the assignment, from making any claim to the lands, or from demanding a deed of the sheriff; that the sheriff be directed to make a deed to the complainant; that the defendants be decreed to have no title, and required to release all title which they may appear to have.
The facts, as they appeared from the answer and the evidence, are set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Wayne too fully to need repetition here.
Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and Mr. Burgess, of Illinois, argued the cause for the appellants.
Mr. Beckwith, of Illinois, for appellees. 1. The judgment against James Herrington not having been revived against his heirs, the execution was a nullity and the sale void. 2. It is not true that J. M. Herrington got the certificate fraudulently. 3. The appellant, by his own showing, is simply a purchaser of the right to set aside a legal instrument, and has, therefore, no standing in a court of equity. 4. Adams being clothed with the legal indicia of ownership, though he was, in fact, only an agent of Stuart, had power to bind his principal. 5. Stuart ratified the act of Adams, and the subsequent attempt to repudiate it came too late. 6. On the part of the complainant this is a mere speculation; all that is really due to Stuart was tendered, and is now in court for his use. 7. The complainant cannot have the contract with Herrington rescinded without placing the appellees in statu quo, which would permit them to discharge the debt and redeem the land.
Mr. Justice WAYNE.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse