Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
MacKer's Heirs v. Thomas
Citations: 20 U.S. 530; 5 L. Ed. 515; 7 Wheat. 530; 1822 U.S. LEXIS 273
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 15, 1822; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
A writ of error was brought to challenge a judgment from the Circuit Court of Kentucky concerning a land dispute involving John Macker's heirs. After John Macker's death, a rule was entered to revive the suit against his heirs, who did not contest it, leading to a default judgment against them. The key issue for the Court was whether the revival of the suit against Macker's heirs and the subsequent judgment were erroneous. The Court referenced the precedent set in Green v. Watkins, concluding that the death of a party abates both real and personal actions at common law unless a statute allows continuation through representatives, which applies only to personal actions. The defendants argued that they could not appeal the judgment due to their failure to plead in the original suit. However, the Court found that they were made parties to the case by the court's order and were thus entitled to appeal, as they were adversely affected by the judgment. The Court clarified that even though the judgment was by default, it could still be grounds for a writ of error. The defendants contended that their attorney's appearance in the lower court did not rectify the initial error of reviving the suit against them, as a new cause of action arose following their ancestor’s death, necessitating a new summons. Lastly, it was argued that the heirs could not assign error regarding the revival order since they did not object in the original court; the Court indicated that this limitation might not prevent their writ of error. An exception to the Court's opinion is only necessary when an alleged error is not apparent in the record. In this case, the error involved the revival of a suit against the heirs of the original defendant and the subsequent judgment against them based on a summons related to the original defendant, which is evident from the record. The Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Kentucky erred in these actions. Consequently, the Court has reversed and annulled the Circuit Court's judgment, ordering that the suit be abated.