Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 U.S. 175

Kunckel v. Baker

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1786-04

This, was an application for a special court, founded on the act passed the 10th of April 1782. Kunckel, the petitioner, set forth in his affidavit, that one of the plaintiffs, Boom, with whom he had been in partnership, had dissolved their connection, since the commencement of the action, and that the outstanding debts had been assigned to Kunckel, so as to vest in him the whole interest in the event of the action.

2 counsel of record

Relies on Caton v. M'Carty · Ex parte Holker · Caton v. M'Carty

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1786-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1983

5 state decisions

30178617901800181018201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Practice. — Special cowrts.

¶2A special court will not be ordered, on the ground, that one of the plaintiffs has assigned al his interest to the other, and that the latter is about to depart from the country.

¶3This, was an application for a special court, founded on the act passed the 10th of April 1782. Kunckel, the petitioner, set forth in his affidavit, that one of the plaintiffs, Boom, with whom he had been in partnership, had dissolved their connection, since the commencement of the action, and that the outstanding debts had been assigned to Kunckel, so as to vest in him the whole interest in the event of the action. It was also stated, that Kunckel was about to depart from the United States ; but that Boom had no such intention.

¶4Rawle, for the plaintiff. Bradford, for the defendant. (b)

¶5The Attorney- General, for the defendant,

¶6objected, that, by thus assigning the interest in an action to a going foreigner, a special court, and an early judgment, might always be within reach, to the prejudice not only of the defendants but of other creditors. And upon this ground, the Court unanimously refused the prayer of the petition.

¶8The plaintiff’s counsel then moved, that he ought not to be deprived of his bail, by this application ; which, requiring a declaration to be previously filed, amounted to an acceptance of a common appearance, (a)

¶9In the justice of this motion, the Court concurred, and accordingly, directed a rule to be entered, that the defendant give bail in two months, or a procedendo.

/1/us/175 · .json · Public domain