COLUMBUS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.

CRANE COMPANY, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1936)
  …tions may be likened to a rule of court. They were not published; they were not reduced to writing; they are lacking in the formal safeguards that protect against mistake and perhaps against oppression. Cf. Rio Grande Irrigation Co. v. Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603, 608; Weil v. Neary, 278 U. S. [*466] 160, 169. There are times when settled usage is as efficacious as a written rule to fix the forms of practice. United States v. Stevenson, Fed. Cas. No. 16,395; Norton v. Rich, Fed. Cas. No. 10,352; Detroit Heat…
• Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1929)
  …tion that authority had been or would be given, they are responsible for the consequences of the refusal of authority.” • It is clear that a rule of court thus authorized and made has the force of law. Rio Grande Irrigation Company v. Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603, 608; Thompson v. Hatch, 3 Pick. 512; District of Columbia v. Roth, 18 App. D. C., 547, 550; Murphy v. Gould, 39 App. D. C., 363, 367; Wilkinson [*170] v. Walker, 292 Fed. 395, State v. Lankford, 158 Ind. 34; Advance Veneer Lumber Co. v. Hornaday, 4…
• Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1944)
  …1 U. S. 560, 561; or when the defendant is in default. Voorhees v. Bank of the United States, 10 Pet. 449; Randolph v. Barrett, 16 Pet. 138; Clements v. Berry, 11 How. 398; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308; Rio Grande Irrigation Co. v. Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 315; Christianson v. King County, 239 U. S. 356, 372. It is a familiar practice and an exercise of judicial power for a court upon default, by taking evidence when necessary or by computation from…