Deitsch v. Wiggins
Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
Citation | 82 U.S. 539,15 Wall. 539,21 L.Ed. 228 |
Parties | DEITSCH v. WIGGINS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
'Process was served on all of the defendants excepting Jonas Deitsch; as to him there was a return of 'not found.' (Record, p. 3.) The defendants served with process pleaded:
'1st. The general issue, and there was joinder thereon.
'**
'The plaintiff replied:
'1st. By taking issue upon the right of property of Buell & Co. in the goods, on the 6th of May, 1867. (Record, pp. 5 and 6.)
'2d. Upon the right of property of Buell & Co., on the 4th May, 1867. (Record, pp. 6 and 7.)
'3d. They denied the issuance of the writ of attachment on the 3d May, 1867, returnable 6th July, 1867, and deny the levy of the same.
The brief then thus presented an
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
'Error. The Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado erred
'In affirming the judgment of the inferior court of said Territory, which judgment was erroneous in the following particulars:
'1st. In refusing a new trial upon the evidence contained in the record; 2d, in admitting testimony improperly, and in rejecting testimony improperly, as shown by the bills of exception and specifically as follows:
The brief then concluded thus, with
POINTS AND ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
'The points and argument are sufficiently developed in the statement of the case and the assignment of errors, and it would be but repetition to state them in a different form. The rulings of the court of original jurisdiction were clearly erroneous in admitting improper testimony, in excluding testimony that was legitimate and proper, and in its instructions to the jury given and refused.
'In the narrative contained in the foregoing statement this court will note some irregularities, but how far they can benefit this plaintiff in his present suit the undersigned pretends not to say. The matters referred to are these: The rendition of a judgment for costs in favor of Isadore Deitsch after an issue joined without any verdict upon that issue. (Record, pp. 7 and 8.) The disappearance from the record of the proceedings of Jonas Deitsch after a return of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Neeley
...Idaho 127, 209 P. 722; Western Loan Bldg. Co. v. Gem State Lumber Co., 32 Idaho 497, 185 P. 554; Dietsch v. Wiggins, 1 Colo. 299, 82 U.S. 539, 21 L.Ed. 228; McConnell v. Davis, 46 Okla. 201, 148 P. Hilton v. Bailey, 46 Okla. 759, 149 P. 863; Ferat v. Anderson, 53 Mont. 172, 163 P. 112; Unit......
-
American Intern. Pictures, Inc. v. Foreman
...probative of title, because one in possession acquires no better title than his seller. See generally, e. g., Deitsch v. Wiggins, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 539, 21 L.Ed. 228 (1873). Other than mere possession Foreman showed nothing to establish his title to the copy or to indicate authorization to......
-
Van Gunden v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co.
...v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328, 339; Beckwith v. Bean, 98 U.S. 266, 284; Moulor v. American Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 335, 337, 4 S.Ct. 466.' In Deitsch v. Wiggins, 15 Wall. 539, Mr. Justice said: 'Most of the assignments of error have been made in total disregard of the twenty-first rule of this court. Th......
- Williams v. Eaton