TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reed v. Gardner

Reed v. Gardner, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 409 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 10, 1873
Judges
Hunt
Citations
84 U.S. 40921 L. Ed. 66517 Wall. 4091873 U.S. LEXIS 1377
Headnotes
In passing upon the questions presented in a hill of exceptions this court will not look beyond the bill itself. The pleadings and the statements of the hill, the verdict and the judgment are the only matters that are properly before it. Depositions, exhibits, or certificates not contained in the bill, cannot be considered by the court. The court declares its intention to adhere to what is above presented as its practice; and declares further . that the case of Flanders v. Tweed (9 "Wallace, 425), was exceptional.
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Gardner sued Need in the court below. His declaration alleged that one Wilson had delivered to the defendant cotton, upon an agreement that .he, the defendant, would sell the same, and out of the proceeds pay to him, Gardner, tlje plaintiff, $4000, in which sum the said Wilson was indebted to Gardner; that, the property was.sold, that the net proceeds were $9000', by means whereof the defendant became liable to pay to the plaintiff the $4000, and- that he refused to pay the same. To this the defendant interposed a general denial and several special pleas. A trial was had, and verdict and judgment having been given for the plaintiff, the defendant brought the case hero. The bill of exceptions contained no statement of the evidence, or of the facts upon "which the questions arose. It consisted .only of the charge of the judge, and of requests- and refusals to charge. There was, however, in the’transcript a number of depositions,, exhibits, certificates, &c.., which appeared to have been used in the trial of tíre casé. ,

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

Opinion — Hunt

Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

It has been frequently held by this court, that in passing upon the questions presented in a bill of exceptions, it will not look beyond the bill itself.

* The pleadings, and the statements of the bill, the verdict, and the judgment, are the only matters that are properly before the court. Depositions, exhibits, or certificates not contained in the bill, cannot be considered by the court. The case of Flanders v. Tweed, was exceptional. The court intend to adhere to this practice.

Under this rule there is then nothing whatever in the present case for the court to pass upon.

It is impossible upon a record such as this is, that we should know whether the charge is correct or erroneous, or .whether the refusals to charge as requested were justified, or whether they were improper.

■ As already said, there is absolutely nothing presented to this court for consideration.

Judgment aeeirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1878–1879: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 21884–1885: 11886–1887: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 21904–1905: 11908–1909: 11920–1921: 11922–1923: 21926–1927: 11928–1929: 118782026peak 1882 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. National City Bank of New York281 F. 754 (2d Cir. 1922)
  2. United States v. Siden293 F. 422 (D. Minnesota 1923)
  3. Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mellon18 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1927)
  4. Haubtman & Loeb Co. v. Hooven-Owens-Rentschler Co.262 F. 408 (5th Cir. 1920)
  5. Sweeney v. Baker13 W. Va. 160 (1878)
  6. Krauss Brothers Lumber Co. v. Mellon276 U.S. 386 (1928)

Most recent

  1. Krauss Brothers Lumber Co. v. Mellon276 U.S. 386 (1928)
  2. Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mellon18 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1927)
  3. United States v. Siden293 F. 422 (D. Minnesota 1923)
  4. United States v. National City Bank of New York281 F. 754 (2d Cir. 1922)
  5. Haubtman & Loeb Co. v. Hooven-Owens-Rentschler Co.262 F. 408 (5th Cir. 1920)
  6. Weaver v. Schumpert168 F. 43 (5th Cir. 1909)

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