Orchard v. Hughes
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
A later federal equity rule also displaced Orchard's bar on deficiency decrees in mortgage foreclosures, as applied in Continental-Equitable Title & Trust Co. v. National Properties Co. Both flagged citations have been read. The Constitution Annotated lists Orchard as overruled by Hornbuckle; Hornbuckle's opinion addresses its territorial-court ruling.
2 later cases cite Orchard v. Hughes; 2 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Orchard v. Hughes?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Supreme Court rejected Orchard's rule that territorial courts must follow the equity procedures of federal circuit and district courts.
Hornbuckle v. Toombs · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In the case of Orchard v. Hughes† a majority of this court was of opinion that the Territorial courts were subject to the' same general regulations in equity cases which govern the practice in the Circuit and District Courts. ... On a careful review of the whole subject we are not satisfied that those decisions are founded on a correct view of the law. ... From a review of the entire past legislation of Congress on the subject under consideration, our conclusion is, that the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding of the Territorial courts, as well as their respective jurisdictions, subject, as before said, to a few-express or implied conditions in th¿ organic act itself, were intended to be left to the -legislative action of the Territorial assemblies, and to the regulations which might be adopted by the courts themselves.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Superseded by statute
-
The district court applied a later Supreme Court equity rule allowing a foreclosure deficiency decree, displacing Orchard's former bar.
Continental-Equitable Title & Trust Co. v. National Properties Co. · U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware · filed
Formerly it was not competent for the federal courts, in a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage, to render a decree for any balance that might be found due over and above the proceeds of the sale. Noonan v. Lee, 67 U. S. (2 Black) 499, 17 L. Ed. 278. Orchard v. Hughes, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 73, 17 L. Ed. 560. This was an exception to the general rule that, where a court of equity obtains jurisdiction of an action, it will retain it and administer full relief, so far as it pertains to the same transaction or the same subject-matter. Frank v. Davis, 135 N. Y. 275, 31 N. E. 1100, 17 L. R. A. 306. To abrogate the exception rule 92 was promulgated by the Supreme Court. 68 U. S. vii. ... It follows that a deficiency decree may properly be rendered in this cause.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Orchard v. Hughes and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace