TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

County of Madison v. Warren

Cnty. of Madison v. Warren, 106 U.S. 622 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 18, 1883
Docket
No. 1042
Judges
Waite
Citations
106 U.S. 6222 S. Ct. 8627 L. Ed. 3111882 U.S. LEXIS 1593
Headnotes
Where, in a case tried by the court below, thé record does not affirmatively show a written stipulation waiving^, jury, the questions decided at the trial cannot be re-examined here on a writ of error.
Summary
Ebbob to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a case tried and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury. The record does not show any stipulation in writing waiving a jury. The errors assigned all relate to. rulings of the court on the trial, excepted to at the time, and presented by a bill of exceptions. The rule is well settled, •that if a written stipulation waiving a jury is not in some way *623 shown affirmatively in the record, none of the questions decided at the trial can be re-examined here on writ of error.

Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275 ;

Gilman v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co., 91 U. S. 603 ;

Boogher v. New York Life Insurance Co., 103 id. 90;

Hodges v. Easton, ante, p. 408.

For this reason, and without passing on any of the questions presented by the assignment of errors, the judgment is ' Affirmed.

Note.— County of Alexander v. Kimball, error to the same court as the preceding case, was submitted by Mr. William B. Gilbert for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. T. C. Mather for the defendant in error. It involved the .precise question decided in that case, and a judgment to the same effect was rendered.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 11904–1905: 11908–1909: 11922–1923: 41924–1925: 21926–1927: 31928–1929: 11938–1939: 118842026peak 1922 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harris v. Newsom23 F.2d 652 (8th Cir. 1927)
  2. Twist v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co.6 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1925)
  3. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Whittaker8 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1925) · Dissent
  4. Shields v. Mongollon Exploration Co.137 F. 539 (9th Cir. 1905)
  5. Graver Corp. v. Hercules Gasoline Co.16 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1926)
  6. James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Seimer12 F.2d 772 (7th Cir. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Guiles v. United States100 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1938)
  2. Noone v. Sinner24 F.2d 960 (8th Cir. 1928)
  3. Harris v. Newsom23 F.2d 652 (8th Cir. 1927)
  4. Graver Corp. v. Hercules Gasoline Co.16 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1926)
  5. James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Seimer12 F.2d 772 (7th Cir. 1926)
  6. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Whittaker8 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1925) · Dissent

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Gilman v. Ill. & Miss. Tel. Co., 91 U.S. 603 (1876) 101
Kearney v. Case, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 275 (1871) 77

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