Talk:Mackall v. Casilear/Opinion of the Court

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Mackall v. Casilear, his bill of complaint in the supreme court of the District of Columbia on the 1st day of June, 1885, against George W Casilear and wife; Leonard Mackall and wife; Don Barton Mackall; Benjamin Mackall; Louise Owens and husband; Catherine Christy and husband; Edmund Brand and Mary E Keller, alleging that Leonard, Don Barton, and Benjamin were his brothers, and Louise Owens and Catherine Christy his sisters, all being the sole surviving children of Brooke Mackall, Sr, and Martha Mackall, his wife, and that Edmund Brand and Mary E Keller were the sole surviving children of Louis Brand The bill then stated that on or about December 21, 1863, complainant became owner in fee-simple, through a conveyance to him from Charles W Pairo, George Randolph, executor, and Brooke Mackall, Sr, of lots in the city of Washington, D C, as follows: Lot 2, square 5; lots 3 and 7, square 17; lot 3, square 31; lot 15, squae 4 1; lot 2, square 42; lot 5, square 43; lot 12, square 56; lot 10, square 62; lots 13, 14, and 17, square 76, -and a copy of the deed was annexed That on or about May 5, 1866, complainant executed his promissory notes to the order of his father, and a deed of trust to said Brooke Mackall, Sr, as trustee, which deed was acknowledged before the latter as notary public, upon lot 2, square 5; two parts of lot 12, square 56; and lots 14, 17, and part of 13, square 76,-which was recorded June 5, 1867, and a copy whereof was annexed That there was no consideration for these notes, but they were made for the accommodation of complainant's father for the purpose of borrowing money for the benefit of both, but no money was borrowed, and it was not intended that any claim on the notes should be set up against the complainant, and there was no default in the payment of the same That about seven years after, a variance occurring between complainant and his father, his father having possession of the notes, without complainant's knowledge or consent, advertised said property for sale, except one subdivision of lots 13 and 14, square 76, which had in the mean time been otherwise disposed of by complainant That the advertisement (a copy of which was annexed) was published only on three successive days, though the trustdeed required a publication of 60 days That it was intended that the sale should be kept concealed from complainant, and it was not held on the premises, but at the rooms of the auctioneer That no bidders were present, and at the instance of his father the property was struck off nominally to one Joseph B Hill, but really for the benefit of complainant's father, no money being ever paid by Hill, and his name being used that it might not appear that the trustee was a purchaser at his own sale That this was a scheme devised by the father to divest the son of his property and obtain it himself, without paying anything whatever for it That, in pursuance of such scheme, a deed (a copy of which was annexed) was executed by Brooke Mackall, Sr, as trustee, to Hill, for the nominal consideration of $2,000, though Hill paid nothing And complainant charged that the deed was void and of no effect This deed was dated June 26, and recorded July 2, 1873 .
Source:	Mackall v. Casilear from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/137
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders: