GREEN
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
In this civil action against the United States, the Supreme Court held that federal procedural statutes governing witness competency in civil actions apply to cases where the government is a party, not only to disputes between private persons. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment for excluding defendant witnesses, finding them competent to testify under the applicable statute, though it expressed doubt about whether the evidence would ultimately constitute a valid defense.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY having stated the case, as already given, delivered the opinion of the court.
We see no reason why these acts should not be applied to trials in which the United States are a party, as well as those between private persons. The express exception of executors, administrators, and guardians would seem, by necessary inference, to leave all other suitors under the operation of the law. It is urged that the government is not bound by a law unless expressly named. We do not see why this rule of construction should apply to acts of legislation which lay down general rules of procedure in civil actions. The very fact that it is confined to civil actions would seem to show that Congress intended it to apply to actions in which the government is a party, as well as those between private persons. For the United States is a necessary party in all criminal actions, which are excluded ex vi termini; and if it had been the intent to exclude all other actions in which the government is a party, it would have been more natural and more accurate to have expressly confined the law to actions in which the government is not a party, instead of confining it to civil actions. It would then have corresponded precisely with such intent. Expressed as it is, the intent seems to embrace, instead of excluding, civil actions in which the government is a party. Nothing adverse to this view can be gathered from the exceptions made in the amendment passed in 1865. These exceptions only relate to evidence of transactions with, or statements by, a deceased party (who cannot testify), or by' a party under guardianship. In this case no transactions with, or statements of, the agents of the United States were attempted to be proved by the defendants who were called as witnesses; — nothing but conversations between the defendants themselves. We think the witnesses were competent under the act, and that the court erred in rejecting them.
For this reason the judgment must be reversed and a NEW. TRIAD AWARDED.
The court, However, deem it proper to say that they have grave doubts whether the facts set up in the special pleas, and offered to be proved by the witnesses, constitute a valid defence to the action. But as this point was not discussed by counsel, we refrain from expressing any opinion upon it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1947)…Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 618, 622 (1875); United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 263 (1873); see Guarantee Co. v. Title Guaranty Co., 224 U. S. 152, 155 (1912). United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936); Green v. United States, 9 Wall. 655, 658 (1869). United States v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 190, 197 (1909); United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 159 U. S. 548, 553-555 (1895); Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 238, 239 (1873). “The most general words that can…
-
Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1892)…action ” in the first clause, shows that the first clause was intended to include criminal actions, or, as they are more, commonly called, criminal cases, while the second clause was in terms restricted to civil actions only. Green v. United States, 9 Wall. 655, 658. And were the whole section to be considered by itself, without reference to previous statutes' and decisions, “ trials at common law,” in the final clause of the section, might also be held to include trials in criminal, as well as in civil ca…
-
Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989)…ry, and executive interpretation”); Pfizer Inc. v. India, 434 U. S. 308, 315-318 (1978); Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 224 U. S. 152, 155 (1912); Lewis v. United States, 92 U. S. 618, 622 (1875); Green v. United States, 9 Wall. 655, 658 (1870). The second interpretive principle that the Court invokes comes from cases such as Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 16 (1981); South Dakota v. Dol…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence