BURBANK
v.
BIGELOW
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.
A defendant who filed a peremptory exception after a case was at issue and on the day of trial, arguing that a partner of the plaintiff should have been joined in the suit, was barred from raising that objection as coming too late, and the Supreme Court affirmed that lower courts have discretion to strike such belated procedural challenges. The Court also rejected the defendant's attempt to raise for the first time on appeal that the suit involved equitable matters outside the jury's jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
The case of Breedlove v. Nicolet and Siggs, 7 Pet. 413, disposes of the only question raised by the record in the present case.
That was an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, brought by Nicolet and Siggs as partners, in which, after issue taken on pleas in bar of the action, the defendants on the day. set for trial filed a plea averring that Musson and others were also partners with plaintiffs, and citizens • of Louisiana. The plea was stricken out by order of the court on the ground that it came too late. This court held that such action was within the discretion of the Circuit Court, and could not be revised.
In the case before us the defendant below, plaintiff in error, filed his peremptory exception after the case was at issue, and on the day that it was set for trial before a jury, praying that the' suit should be dismissed, because T. S. Burbank, a partner with plaintiff in the transaction which is the foundation of this suit, was not made a plaintiff in the case. The court overruled this exception on the ground that it came too late. We were at first inclined to distinguish the two cases under the idea that the plea in the first case rested on. the citizenship of the partners not joined in the suit, who, if joined, would have defeated the jurisdiction of the court. But it is expressly said in the opinion, that “the plea is to be considered as if the averment that Musson arid others were citizens of Louisiana had not been contained in it.”
Mr. G. Gushing and Mr. W. W. Boyce for plaintiff in error. Mr. Thomas J. Durant for defendant in error. The point ruled in that case is identical with the one presented here, and that decision must govern this.
The objection that the matter of plaintiff’s demand is one of equitable cognizance in the Federal courts cannot prevail. No such objection was raised in the court below at any stage of the proceedings, and it cannot be permitted to a defendant to go to trial before a jury on the facts of a case involving fraud, and let it pro:ceed to judgment on the verdict without any attempt to assert the equitable character of the suit, and then raise that question for the first time in this court.
As the record raises no other question for our consideration, the judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight, 217 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1910)…by jury would result. In this, case, on the contrary, the question considered did-not concern the inherent jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter. The de- cisión of the question before us is controlled by the case of Burbank v. Bigelow, 154 U. S. 558. That was an action at law in which the plaintiff recovered judgment. In this court, for the first time, the objection was made by the unsuccessful [*267] party that the matter of the demand of plaintiff was one of equitable cognizance. The court, h…
-
Ætna Ins. Co. v. Murray, 66 F.2d 289 (10th Cir. 1933)…case involving fraud, and let it' proceed to judgment on .the verdict without any attempt to assert the equitable character of the suit, and then raise that question for the first time in this court.” Burbank v. Bigelow, 154 U. S. 559, Append., and 14 S. Ct. 1163, 1164, 19 L. Ed. 51. 3. It is contended that there was no substantial evidence that the award was invalid. The submission of a disagreement as to the amount of a loss to disinterested appraisers is a lawful and commendable method of determining su…
-
Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. James A. Dick Co., 23 F.2d 464 (8th Cir. 1927)…below. Insurance Co. v. Frederick, 58 F. 144, 149, 7 C. C. A. 122, 127, 128, 19 U. S. App. 24, 34; Walker v. Collins, 59 F. 70, 72, 8 C. C. A. 1, 3, 4, 19 U. S. App. 307, 311, 312; Speer v. Board, 32 C. C. A. 101, 88 F. 749, 753; Burbank v. Bigelow, 154 U. S. 558, 14 S. Ct. 1163, 19 L. Ed. 51; Railroad Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 13 S. Ct. 444, 37 L. Ed. 292; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 18 C. C. A. 54, 71 F. 314.” We are therefore of the opinion, not only that the obligation in this ease, while runnin…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413 (U.S. 1833)