TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Generes v. Bonnemer

Generes v. Bonnemer, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 564 (1869)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 12, 1869
Judges
Miller
Citations
74 U.S. 56419 L. Ed. 2277 Wall. 5641868 U.S. LEXIS 1035
Cited by 8
Syllabus
A judgment affirmed in a'case where the only ruling of the court, to be found in the record, was a judgment rendered in favor of a plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money; where there' was no question raised in the pleadings, no bill of exceptions, and no instructions or ruling of the court; and where what purported to be a statement, of facts, signed by the judge, was filed more than two months after the writ of error was . allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued.
Summary
■ In this case, which came on error to the Circuit Court for, Louisiana, it appeared that the only ruling of the court, to be found in the record, .was a judgment rendered in favor, of plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of mouey. There waa no question raised on the pleadings; no hill.of exceptions; no instructions or ruling of, the court. ' There, was what purported to be a statement Of facts,, signed by the judge, found in the record; It was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month aftey the citation was issued by the judge. It did not appear to have been filed by. consent of parties.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Miller

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

To permit the judge to make a statement of facts, on which the case shall be heard here, after the case is removed to this court by the service of the writ of error, or even after it is issued, would place the rights of parties who have judgments of record, entirely in the power of the judge, without hearing and without remedy. The statement of facts, filed without consent of the parties, must be treated as a nullity;, and, as there is nothing,on which error of the court below can be predicated, the judgment must be Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1876–1877: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11896–1897: 11934–1935: 11940–1941: 118762026peak 1876 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America2 F.R.D. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
  2. Martin v. Drexel Ice Cream Co.80 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1935)
  3. Hunnicutt v. Peyton102 U.S. 333 (1880)
  4. Ex parte Buskirk72 F. 14 (4th Cir. 1896)
  5. Coughlin v. District of Columbia106 U.S. 7 (1882)
  6. Snell v. Dwight121 Mass. 348 (1876)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America2 F.R.D. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
  2. Martin v. Drexel Ice Cream Co.80 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1935)
  3. Ex parte Buskirk72 F. 14 (4th Cir. 1896)
  4. Hudson v. Charleston, C. & C. R.55 F. 252 (1893)
  5. United States v. Claasen46 F. 67 (1891)
  6. Coughlin v. District of Columbia106 U.S. 7 (1882)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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