Davenport v. Paris
Davenport v. Paris, 136 U.S. 580 (1890)
Syllabus
Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435; and Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, affirmed and applied to the stipulation filed in this case by-counsel, the jury being waived.
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
This was an action to recover on bonds and coupons issued by the defendant, a municipal corporation, in aid of the construction- of a railroad. The record contained the following stipulation “ as to facts, etc.” being signed by the counsel:
, “It is stipulated in the matter of Charles Davenport v. The Town of Paris, in assumpsit, now pending in the U. S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois, that the instruments sued on, being bonds numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80, -with coupons now attached, which purport to be the bonds of the town of Paris, were signed, respectively, by Henry Van Sellar and James A. Dittoe on the dates of said instruments, and that the said Henry Van Sellar was on that date supervisor of said town of- Paris, and that the said James A. Dittoe was on said date the town clerk of said town of Paris.
“ It is also agreed that a jury is waived in said matter. The' above coupons are as cure as follows: -61 of series 8, 9 and 10 and 51 of series 7, being 234 coupons.
“It is further stipulated that said bonds and coupons are identical in character with the bonds and coupons in the matter of Skinner v. Town of East Oakland, tried in this court and appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, tried there, and reported in 94 U. S. 255, and issued in same manner, the only difference being that these bonds and coupons were issued by the town of Paris instead of the town of East Oakland.
“ In case of appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court this case may be submitted under rule 20 on written briefs.”
‘Judgment below for the defendant, to review which the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398 ;
Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192 ;
Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435 ; and Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604 , and cases cited.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.