Doss et al. v. Tyack et al. Warren then instituted proceedings in the State Court on behalf of Tyack and the creditors, and obtained an injunction and a writ of seizure against Newell, on which the sheriff took possession of the property of the firm. On the 10th of July, 1848, on motion of Newell's counsel, the court, for some reason, set aside the injunction and writ of seizure. The counsel for Tyack and the creditors, immediately discontinued their proceedings in the State Court, and commenced proceedings in the District Court of the United States. While the bill for that purpose was being prepared, and application being made for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver, Newell and one Peter McGreal proceeded in hot haste from the court house, got possession of the goods from the sheriff, and had the following instrument of writing executed: "Received, Galveston, July 10, from S. W. Doss, of Brazoria, the following amounts: Two thousand dollars, in good notes, mortgages, liens, and judgments, and seven thousand seven hundred and fifty-three dollars in lands, full payment of the stock of goods, wares, and merchandise now in our store in Galveston. STEWART NEWELL. "Recap.-Cash, $2,000; Notes, $2,000; Lands, $7,753Total, $11,753. "In presence of John Warrin, Isaac D. Knight.' No notes, judgments, or liens, were in fact assigned by McGreal to Newell, nor any conveyances of land made; but McGreal gave his written promise to assign and convey securities and lands to that amount within thirty days. The production of the two thousand dollars cash, was also dispensed with, as the parties appear to have been in too great haste to be particular. The answer of Newell attempts to account for the cash as follows: "This defendant states, that the said first payment in cash of $2,000, mentioned in said receipt, was secured and made to this defendant by Peter McGreal, Esq., the agent of said Doss; that a portion of said sum of $2,000, to wit, about $1,200, was paid by the said McGreal, agent as aforesaid, to *311] Benjamin C. *Franklin, Joseph A. Swett, and John B. Jones, in pursuance of, and in accordance with, an order given by this defendant to said McGreal for that purpose; that forty-two dollars and fifty cents were paid upon the order of this defendant to J. A. Sauters for rent of said store, due by said firm; and the balance, to wit, about seven hundred and fifty dollars, was directed by this defendant to be paid over or secured to Isaac D. Knight, to be by him held to the use of the firm of S. N. & Co., to be paid over Doss et al. v. Tyack et al. for the said use upon the order of this defendant, in like manner as the said book debts and other choses in action assigned to said Franklin, as above mentioned." What right Franklin, Swett, and Jones had, to receive this money, or how, or why it was paid to them, (if it was paid,) or how Knight, the brother-in-law of Newell, became a trustee for the creditors of the firm, the answer does not disclose. McGreal appears also to have treated Newell with the same unbounded confidence which Newell had reposed in him. He took the goods on trust, as to quantity and quality; required no invoice or schedule, being content with one which the sheriff had made; and immediately commenced to pack them up and seek for assistance and means for carrying them of. The transaction commenced after twelve o'clock in the day, and by twelve o'clock at night, a large portion of the goods were put on board the sloop Alamo, which set sail before morning. In the mean time the bill in this case had been filed, and a receiver appointed, who, on the following day, (11th July,) was enabled by means of a writ of assistance, to arrest the sloop and get possession of the goods. It is unnecessary to enumerate all the charges of the bill, and the answers thereto, as it is amply sufficient for the purposes of the decision in this case, that the facts we have already stated were either admitted by the answers, or undeniably proved. The plaintiff in error, Stephen W. Doss, who claims to be the owner of the goods, thus alleged to have been purchased by Peter McGreal, was made a party to the suit. Both he and Newell deny, in their answer, all fraud in the transaction, and Doss avers, "that the said transaction was made in the regular mode of conducting such business, and at a time when there was no lawful restraint existing to prevent the sale and delivery of the goods." On this case the court below, at the March term, 1850, rendered a decree for the complainants, dissolving the partnership, setting aside the sale to McGreal, or Doss, as fraudulent, and ordering the receiver to pay over the proceeds of the goods, (which had been previously sold by order of the court,) to the creditors of the firm. *But, in order rightly to apprehend the points relied on by the counsel for appellants, in claiming at [*312 reversal of the decree, it will be necessary to state some of the intermediate proceedings in the case, as exhibited by the record. During the pendency of the suit, Newell and McGreal had gone to New York, and persuaded Tyack & Murray to revoke the power of attorney given to Warren, and to exe Doss et al. v. Tyack et al. cute one to the respondents' counsel, authorizing them to dismiss the bill; and a motion was made by them, for this purpose, in August, 1848. This motion was resisted, on the ground that the firm was wholly insolvent; that the power to Warren was given on a contract with the creditors, and for a valuable consideration, and was, therefore, irrevocable; as it would be a fraud in Tyack to dismiss the proceedings, for the benefit of the creditors, after the great trouble and expense incurred by them for the purpose of protecting Tyack from ruin. Notwithstanding these objections, the court ordered the suit to be dismissed; but, some days after, at the same term, vacated and set aside this order or decree, on proof, that the revocation of the power to Warren, and the order given to discontinue or dismiss the proceedings, were obtained from the complainants by gross misrepresentation and fraud. Afterwards, an issue was ordered, on prayer of respondents' counsel, to try the question of fraud. This issue was tried before a jury, who rendered a verdict that "the sale was fraudulent." Whereupon, the respondents moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was given “under a misconstruction and misunderstanding of the charge of the court." The motion was founded on an affidavit of some of the jurors that, "on their retirement, they did not inquire into the right and power of Doss to purchase, nor of the question of fraud on Doss's part, but only into the right and power of Newell to make the sale." We are now prepared to examine the facts relied upon for the reversal of this decree. They are, 1st. That the court had no power to set aside the order or decree, dismissing the bill, unless, on a new and original bill, filed for the purpose. 2d. That, on this certificate of the jury, the court should have granted a new trial on the question of fraud. 1. As regards the first point, we perceive no error in the action of the court, except in their first order dismissing the suit. It did not require an original bill, to authorize the court to vacate an order or decree, at the same term in which it was made, on discovering that they have committed an error, or that the consent of the complainants to such dismissal was obtained by the fraud of the respondents, or their agents. In fact, under *such circumstances, it cannot *313] be said that the act was done by the consent or will of the complainants, at all. The court, in vacating the decree, were correcting an error both of fact and of law; and, during the term at which it was rendered, they had full power to amend, correct, or vacate it, for either of these reasons. Perkins v. Fourniquet et al. 2. The second point is equally without foundation. It is true, that the answers of the respondents denied fraud in the abstract, but they admitted all the facts and circumstances necessary to constitute it in the concrete. The general denial of the answer, only showed that the definition of fraud was much narrower, in the estimation of the respondents, than in that of courts of law and equity. In this case, a verdict was wholly unnecessary, to inform the conscience of the Chancellor; and, the verdict being perfectly correct, the court very properly refused to set it aside, on any representation from jurors thus obtained. Any argument to vindicate the correctness of the verdict and the decree of the court below, after the exhibition of the merits of this case, which we have given, would be entirely superfluous. The decree of the District Court of Texas, is therefore affirmed. ORDER. This cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record, from the District Court of the United States for the District of Texas, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed, by this court, that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs. JOHN PERKINS, APPELLANT, v. EDWARD P. FOURNIQUET AND HARRIET, HIS WIFE, AND MARTIN EWING AND ANNE, HIS WIFE. An appeal will lie to correct a mistake of the court below in executing a mandate on a former appeal. On the affirmance of a judgment, interest should be computed at six per cent. per annum, from the day when judgment was signed in the court below, until paid.1 Releases given by the complainants, in the present case, decided to cover the matters in controversy, and, therefore, to put an end to all claim by them; inasmuch as there is no proof that they were obtained by fraud or circumvention.2 THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. 1 FOLLOWED. West Wisconsin R'y Co. v. Foley, 4 Otto, 102. Further decision, Fourniquet v. Perkins, 16 How., 82. 2 S. P. Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How., 116. Perkins v. Fourniquet et al. The case, in some of its branches, had been before the court three times before. A motion to dismiss a case between the *314] *same parties, at January term, 1848, is reported in 6 How., 206. It came up again at January term, 1849, and is reported in 7 How., 160. Again, at December term, 1851, a dispute, growing out of the same matters, was before this court, and the judgment of the court below affirmed by a divided court. Consequently, it was not reported; but the mandate, which was issued therein, gave rise to a difficulty, which will be the subject of the succeeding case in this volume. Ewing and wife were parties, together with Fourniquet and wife, to the present suit, but the controversy cannot be distinctly understood, without a reference to the case in 7 How., 160. The family connection of the parties is there explained. The present claim of Fourniquet and wife, and Ewing and wife, against Perkins, was founded on the alleged rights of the marital community of Mrs. Perkins (the mother of Harriet and Anne) with Mr. Perkins, according to the laws of Louisiana. The bill alleges the marriage was consummated in Louisiana, where both the widow Bynum and the defendant Perkins were then citizens; and that the defendant always retained his legal and political domicil in Louisiana, though some time after the marriage, for the ostensible purpose of health, established a family residence near Natchez, in the State of Mississippi. The bill charges, that defendant, during the marriage, expended of community funds, in the State of Mississippi, in permanent investments of real estate, an amount of about $39,600, which remained in kind at the dissolution of the marriage by the death of his wife in 1824, but which he has since sold and disposed of to his own use. That defendant had no revenues or resources in Mississippi from which these investments were made; but it was all derived from the revenues of his and his wife's property and cotton estates in Louisiana, and were partnership funds, in which complainants, as heirs of their mother's community, had rights of partnership, and now have right to hold defendant to account therefor. The charge, that if defendant intended and expected to get an advantage to himself, by investing the community funds in the State of Mississippi, rather than in Louisiana, then it was a fraud on his part, for which he is liable; or, if intended in good faith, yet such investment charged defendant with a trust, for which they pray he may be held responsible. But complainants aver, that as defendant has heretofore |