Imágenes de páginas

ance and costs. Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall.

(Dec., 1866.) When the record presents a case in this

which has been prosecuted exclusively as prize, the rty cannot be here condemned as for a statutory forfeit

United States v. Weed, 5 Wall. 62. When the record presents a case prosecuted below, on stance side of the court, for forfeiture under a statute, not here be condemned as prize. 16.

In either of these cases, if the facts disclosed in the - justify it, the case will be remanded to the court below new libel, and proper proceedings, according to the true e of the case.

16. In the present case, which was prosecuted as prize of xclusively, the facts did not prove a case of prize, nor hey show a probable case of violation of any statutes.

. ree of the court below dismissing the libel and restoring coperty was therefore affirmed. IV.

(Dec., 1868.) Where the judges of the Supreme Court - United States are equally divided in opinion upon the ions of law or fact involved in a case before the court, peal or writ of error, the judgment of affirmance, which judgment rendered in such a case, is as conclusive and ng in every respect, upon the parties, as if rendered

the concurrence of all the judges, upon every question ved in the case. Durant v. Esser Company, 7 Wall. 107.

(Dec., 1868.) Where there is no bill of exceptions, lothing upon which error can be assigned, the regular ice is to affirm the judgment, not to dismiss. James v. , 7 Wall. 692.

(Dec., 1869.) When the evidence upon a boundary between two Mexican grants, is conflicting and irrecone, this court will not interfere with the decision of the below. Alviso v. United States, 8 Wall. 337. (Dec., 1871.) Where, in a case tried under the above


mentioned act [of March 3, 1865, authorizing the trial of facts hy Circuit Courts), the record, owing to the manner in which things have been done below, presents a case as of a judgment rendered on a general verdict in favor of the defendant in error, and does not present any question arising on the pleadings, nor any ruling against the plaintiff in error, the judgment will be affirmed. Bethell v. Mathews, 13 Wall. 1.

20. (Oct., 1879.) The administratrix of A. recovered judgment for damages by reason of his death, caused by the negligence of B., who thereupon sued out of this court a writ of error. During its pendency the statute authorizing such a suit was repealed. Held, that the judgment was not vacated by the writ, and that it must be affirmed, no error appearing in the proceedings below. Railway Co. v. Twombly, 10 Otto, 78.

21. (Oct., 1879.) Where letters-patent expired before the final determination of the suit brought by the patentee, complaining of the infringement of them, and praying for an injunction and an account, and the court below, by its decree, sustained their validity and awarded him costs, but neither damages nor profits, and the defendant appealed, this court, as the only question now involved is that of costs, affirms the decree without examining the merits. Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith, 10 Otto, 110.

22. (Oct., 1979.) For all the purposes of the case, a judgment of affirmance here, by a divided court, is as effectual as if all the judges had concurred therein. Durant v. Essex Company, 11 Otto, 555.



1. (Feb., 1795.) Where there has been erroneously a joint award of damages in the inferior court, but the facts appear on the record, the superior court will sever the damages, and

ment may in practice, and as a rule of convenience, have received the certificate of purchase as evidence of title, yet neither that practice nor the certificate itself can control the power, either of the United States or of this cout, to adjudge or confirm the title to the land to the true owner. Marshall, 20 How. 558. as to their amount, unless for a clear mistake, or gross overallowance of the court below. facts which prove to be material, but which cannot have

so apportion them as to effectuate substantial justice. Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 88, 107, 120.

2. (Ang., 1796.) The Supreme Court modified and reduced the amount of a decree of the Circuit Court, having the necessary documents before them on the record. Hills v. Ross, 3 Dall. 332.

3. (Feb., 1818.) Libel for a forfeiture of goods imported, and alleged to have been invoiced at a less sum than the actual cost at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties, contrary to the sixty-sixth section of the collection law, ch. 128. Restitution decreed upon the evidence as to

the cost of the goods at the place where they were last shipped; the form of the libel excluding all inquiry as to their cost at the place where they were originally shipped, and

as to the continuity of voyage. United States v. One hundred and fifty Crates, 3 Wheat. 232.

4. (Feb., 1822.) This court will restore to the former owners property captured in violation of the neutrality of the United States, where it is claimed by the original wrongdoer, though it may have come back to his possession after a regular condemnation as prize. The Arrogante Barcelones, 5. (Dec., 1857). Although the officers of the land depart

Irvine v. 6. (Dec., 1869.) Decrees in salvage will not be disturbed

The Camanche, 8 Wall. 419. 7. (Dec., 1869.) In admiralty, an omission to state some

7 Wheat. 496.

Occasioned any surprise to the opposite party, will not be


allowed to work injury to the libellant, on appeal, if the court can see that there was no design, on his part, in omitting to state them. The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665.

8. (Dec., 1870.) That this court, instead of awarding a venire facias de novo, must, under the twenty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act, as well as by the common-law powers of a court of error, render the judgment which the Circuit Court ought to have rendered on that verdict. Insurance Co. v. Boykin, 12 Wall. 433.

9. Such a judgment was accordingly certified to the Circuit Court, to be there enforced by execution. Ib.



1. (Feb., 1809.) It is no ground of reversal that the court below refused a new trial which had been moved for on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch, 187.

2. (Feb., 1815.) If this court reverse a decree upon a technical objection to evidence (probably not made in the court below), it will not dismiss the bill absolutely, but remand the cause to the court below for further proceedings. Drummond v. Magruder, 9 Cranch, 122.

3. (Jan., 1830.) This case came before the court on a judgment in the Circuit Court, for the defendant, the avowant in replevin, he having demurred to the pleas of the plaintiff in an action of replevin. The court, having reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, remanded the cause, with instructions to the Circuit Court to overrule the demurrer, and permit the defendant, the avowant, to plead. Lloyd v. Scott, 4 Pet. 207.

4. (Jan., 1831.) Although on each of the principal objections relied on as showing error in the proceedings of the District Court, a majority of the members of this court think

« AnteriorContinuar »