Crews v. Brewer
| Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
| Citation | 19 Wall. 70,22 L.Ed. 63,86 U.S. 70 |
| Parties | CREWS v. BREWER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Mr. Albert Pike, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Gustavus Koerner, contra.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.
Complaint was made by the plaintiff that the defendant at the time and place mentioned in the declaration, broke and entered the plaintiff's close therein described and ejected him from the premises, and that the defendant still unlawfully withholds the possession of the same from the plaintiff; and the plaintiff avers that he claims title to the land in fee, and that the same is worth $5000. Service was made and the defendant appeared and pleaded that he was not guilty of unlawfully withholding the premises claimed by the plaintiff in the manner and form as alleged in the declaration. Issue was joined by the plaintiff, but the parties subsequently appeared and waived a jury and submitted the issue to the court. Evidence was introduced on both sides, and the record states that 'the court being sufficiently advised finds the issue for the defendant, that he is not guilty of unlawfully withholding from the plaintiff the possession of the premises,' as alleged in the declaration. A motion for new trial was filed by the plaintiff, which was overruled by the court, and the court entered judgment for the defendant and that he recover the costs of suit. Leave was granted to the plaintiff to file a bill of exceptions within sixty days, and within that period he filed the paper exhibited in the transcript, which is denominated the bill of exceptions. Evidence, consisting of a certain patent and certain original deeds, and of certain depositions and a certain record and other documents, was introduced by the plaintiff. Countervailing evidence was then introduced by the defendant, consisting of oral testimony and a copy of a deed, all of which, together with that introduced by the plaintiff, is set forth at large in the instrument called the bill of exceptions. All of the evidence was introduced without objection, and of course was properly admitted. Instructions were asked by the plaintiff at the close of the trial, which the court refused to adopt, and stated what the conclusions of court were as matter of law, in view of the whole evidence reported in the bill of exceptions. To each and all of which propositions of law the plaintiff then and there excepted and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
... ... 561; ... Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 19 L.Ed. 608; ... Miller v. Life Insurance Co., 12 Wall. 284, 301, 20 ... L.Ed. 398; Crews v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 70, 22 L.Ed ... 63; Tyng v. Grinnell, 92 U.S. 467, 472, 23 L.Ed ... 733; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U.S. 192, 10 ... ...
-
Babbitt Bros. Trading Co. v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co.
...L. Ed. 561; Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 19 L. Ed. 608; Miller v. Life Insurance Co., 12 Wall. 285, 301, 20 L. Ed. 398; Crews v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 70, 22 L. Ed. 63; Tyng v. Grinnell, 92 U. S. 467, 472, 23 L. Ed. 733; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192, 10 S. Ct. 57, 33 L. Ed. 309......
-
Streeter v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago
...20 L.Ed. 722; Insurance Company v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 21 L.Ed. 827; Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, 69, 22 L.Ed. 47; Crews v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 70, 22 L.Ed. 63; Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158, 22 L.Ed. Insurance Co. V. Boon, 95 U.S. 117, 135, 24 L.Ed. 395; The Abbotsford, 98 U.S. 44......
-
Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. Gottschalk Co.
... ... progress of the trial, and therefore could not be reviewed; ... and in Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, Crews ... v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 70, and other later cases cited, the ... doctrine has been reiterated. It is urged that there is and ... can be no dispute ... ...