TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Falconer v. Montgomery

Falconer v. Montgomery, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 232 (1802)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 1, 1802
Citations
4 U.S. 2321 L. Ed. 8134 Dall. 2321802 U.S. LEXIS 92

Opinion

4 U.S. 232 (____) 4 Dall. 232

Falconer

versus

Montgomery et al.

Supreme Court of United States.

*233 M. Levy, and Franklin, for the plaintiff.

Ingersoll, Moylan, and Hopkinson, for the defendants.

By the COURT:

The case of Hall v. Lawrence was decided in 1792. It is not, therefore, binding upon us, as an authority; and, upon principle, we cannot accede to the decision. The plainest dictates of natural justice, must prescribe to every tribunal, the law, that "no man shall be condemned unheard." It is not merely an abstract rule, or positive right; but it is the result of long experience, and of a wise attention to the feelings and dispositions of human nature. An artless narrative of facts, a natural and ardent course of reasoning, by the party himself, will sometimes have a wonderful effect upon a sound and generous mind; an effect, which the cold and minute details of a reporter, can neither produce, nor supplant. Besides; there is scarcely a piece of written evidence, or a sentence of oral testimony, that is not susceptible of some explanation, or exposed to some contradiction: there is scarcely an argument that may not be elucidated, so as to ensure success; or controverted, so as to prevent it. To exclude the party, therefore, from the opportunity of interposing, in any of these modes (which the most candid and the most intelligent, but a disinterested, person, may easily overlook) is not only a privation of his right; but an act of injustice to the umpire; whose mind might be materially influenced by such an interposition.

Under these impressions, and upon the single ground, to which they relate, we are, unanimously, of opinion, that the report of the referees must be set aside.

Report set aside.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1826–1827: 11848–1849: 11858–1859: 11874–1875: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 11892–1893: 118262026peak 1826 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Farmington v. Pillsbury114 U.S. 138 (1885)
  2. Flint River Steam Boat Co. v. Roberts, Allen & Co.2 Fla. 102 (1848)
  3. Ingraham v. Whitmore75 Ill. 24 (1874)
  4. Curtis v. City of Sacramento28 P. 108 (Cal. 1883)
  5. Peters v. Newkirk6 Cow. 103 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1826)
  6. Walker v. Walker28 Ga. 140 (1859)

Most recent

  1. Warren v. Tinsley53 F. 689 (5th Cir. 1893)
  2. Farmington v. Pillsbury114 U.S. 138 (1885)
  3. Curtis v. City of Sacramento28 P. 108 (Cal. 1883)
  4. Ingraham v. Whitmore75 Ill. 24 (1874)
  5. Walker v. Walker28 Ga. 140 (1859)
  6. Flint River Steam Boat Co. v. Roberts, Allen & Co.2 Fla. 102 (1848)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Mitchell v. Smith, 4 U.S. 232 (Pa. 1803) 0

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list