TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Avendano v. Gay

Avendano v. Gay, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 376 (1869)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 15, 1869
Judges
Miller
Citations
75 U.S. 37619 L. Ed. 4228 Wall. 3761868 U.S. LEXIS 1114
Headnotes
1. A party in this court cannot allege as error in the court below, the admission of evidence offered by himself and objected to by the other side. 2. A statement of facts, made and filed by the judge several days after the issue and service of the writ of error in the case, is a nullity. Generes v. Bonnemer (7 Wallace, 564), affirmed.
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Louisiana. Avendano brought suit in the court below against Gay; and, in the course of the trial, offered certain evidence, which was objected to by the defendant, but which was admitted, notwithstanding, by the court.' The defendant excepted, and a bill of exceptions was sealed. A verdict was given against the plaintiffs, who brought the case here on error. The writ of error was allowed on the 9th of July, 1867. The citation .was issued on the 10th, and served on the 11th. On the 16th of July, a “statement of facts,” by the judge who heard the case, was filed, and the cause in this state was here.

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.

In order to show error in the proceedings in the Circuit Court, the counsel of the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, has referred to a bill of exceptions taken by the defendant to the ruling of the court admitting evidence, offered by plaintiff against defendant’s objection. If there was error in the ruling, it was at plaintiff’s request, and to the prejudice of defendant, and can form no ground of reversing the judgment, which, notwithstanding this testimony, was for the defendant.

Counsel also attempts to impugn the judgment, as not being supported by the facts of the case, and relies on what purports to he a statement of the facts found by the court. But the statement is filed in the court several days after the issue and service of the writ of error in this case, and is, therefore, a nullity, as we decided in the case of Generes v. JBonnemer.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1908: 11935: 11941: 119082026peak 1908 · 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. Rodier v. Life Insurance32 App. D.C. 159 (D.C. Cir. 1908)

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. Rodier v. Life Insurance32 App. D.C. 159 (D.C. Cir. 1908)

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