UNITED STATES
v.
CHIDESTER

U.S. | 1891-04-20
No. 313
140 U.S. 49 Supreme Court of the United States (1891) Caution
Also reported at: 35 L. Ed. 339 · 11 S. Ct. 650 · SCDB 1890-221 · 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2430
Cited by 44 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.-

Per Curiam.-

This was an action brought under sections 3961 and 4057 of the Revised Statutes. There was evidence tending to establish the issues on plaintiff’s part, within the rule laid down in United States v. Barlow, 132 U. S. 271. The court took the case away from the jury and in that committed error. The judgment is reversed, o/rtd the cause remanded with a direction to award a new trial.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • Thornton v. Carter, 109 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1940)
    …2d 746, 750; Jensma v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 9 Cir., 64 F. 2d 457, 464. Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Clark v. Keith, 106 U.S. 464, 465, 1 S.Ct. 568, 27 L.Ed. 302; In re Washington, etc. R. Co., 140 U.S. 91, 11 S.Ct. 673, 35 L.Ed. 339; Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U.S. 228, 243, 13 S.Ct. 611, 37 L.Ed. 432; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255, 16 S.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414; In re Potts, 166 U.S. 263, 267, 17 S.Ct. 520, 41 L.Ed. 994; Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co., 184 U.S. 7…
    1 / 2
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967)
    …. 11, 9 L.Ed.2d 1 (1962); United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 365 U.S. 125, 81 S.Ct. 433, 5 L.Ed.2d 457 (1961); Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. R., 334 U.S. 304, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948); In re Washington & G. R. R., 140 U.S. 91, 11 S.Ct. 673, 35 L.Ed. 339 (1891); Tyler v. Magwire, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 253, 21 L.Ed. 576 (1872); Ex Parte Dubuque & Pac. R. R., 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 69, 17 L.Ed. 514 (1863). The rule prevents the lower court from considering newly discovered evidence, In re Potts, 166 U.S. 263,…
  • Clarke v. HOT Springs Elec. Light & Power Co., 76 F.2d 918 (10th Cir. 1935)
    …ich it is expressed. A decree of the circuit court, allowing interest in such a case, is, to all intents and purposes, quoad hoc, a new decree, extending the former decree.” In re Washington & Georgetown R. Co., 140 U. S. 91, 94, 96, 11 S. Ct. 673, 35 L. Ed. 339, was a proceeding in mandamus against a trial judge who added interest to a judgment which did not provide for interest and which had been affirmed without any order as to interest. The writ was issued, the court saying: “The fact that the judgment…

Previewing 3 of 21 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