COUNTY OF MADISON
v.
WARREN

U.S. | 1882-10-01
106 U.S. 622 Supreme Court of the United States (1882) Caution
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 311 · 2 S. Ct. 86 · 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1593 · SCDB 1882-122
Cited by 31 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court affirmed a trial court judgment entered without a jury, holding that because no written stipulation waiving the jury right was affirmatively shown in the record, it could not review the trial court's rulings on the merits and must uphold the judgment regardless of the substantive errors assigned.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice 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 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Bond & Another v. Dustin, 112 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1884)
    …y stipulation in writing, signed by the parties or their attorneys, and filed with the clerk. Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425; Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Gilman v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co., 91 U. S. 603, 614; Madison County v. Warren, 106 U. S. 622; Alexander County v. Kimball, 106 U. S. 623, note. In Flanders v. Tweed, Mr. Justice Nelson quoted the passage just cited from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney in Campbell v. Boyreau, and said that Avhen a trial by jury had been Avaived, but there…
  • Campbell v. United States, 224 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1912)
  • Harris v. Newsom, 23 F.2d 652 (8th Cir. 1927)
    …ons, ‘The above cause coming on for trial, by agreement of parties, by the court, without the intervention of a jury.’ The case cannot be distinguished, in any particular favorable to the plaintiffs in error, from those, of Madison County v. Warren [106 U. S. 622, 2 S. Ct. 86, 27 L. Ed. 311] and Alexander County v. Kimball [106 U. S. 623, 2 S. Ct. 86, 27 L. Ed. 311], above cited, the latest adjudications upon the subject, both of which came up from the same court as the present ease. In one of those eases, t…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw