Equator Mining Smelting Co v. Hall
Citation | 27 L.Ed. 114,1 S.Ct. 128,106 U.S. 86 |
Parties | EQUATOR MINING & SMELTING CO. v. HALL and another |
Decision Date | 13 November 1882 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
The case was an action of ejectment to recover possession of a silver mine. The plaintiffs below were Hall and Marshall, who obtained a judgment for the possession of the property in controversy. At the December term, 1878, of the circuit court the case had been submitted, by agreement of the parties, waiving a jury, to the judge, who rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant. Thereupon the plaintiffs paid the costs of the suit up to that time, and moved the court to grant them a new trial without showing any cause, which was ordered under the provisions of section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Colorado. At the May term, 1879, the case was submitted to a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was entered on the fifteenth of July. The defendant then made a motion for a new trial without showing cause, which was claimed to be a matter of right under the same section. On the question whether this new trial should be granted, the judges of the circuit court were divided in opinion, and a judgment was entered overruling the motion. They have certified that question to this court.
The section of the Code of Colorado under which this motion was made reads as follows:
H. M. Teller, for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
This is a writ of error to the circuit court for the district of Colorado.
Two questions are presented for our consideration in reviewing the action of the circuit court on this motion for a new trial. The first is whether the circuit court of the United States sitting in Colorado is to be governed by the statute of that state on this subject. At the common law, the fiction in an action of ejectment, by which Joe Doe and Richard Roe were made plaintiff and defendant, permitted any number of trials after verdict and judgment between the same parties in interest on the same question of title, by the use of other fictitious names, and other allegations of demise, entry, and ouster. The evil of this want of conclusiveness in the result of this form of action led to the interposition of a court of equity, in which, after repeated verdicts and judgments in favor of the same party and upon the same title, that court would enjoin...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Virginia, T. & C. Steel & Iron Co. v. Harris
... ... States held in such states respectively. Equator Co. v ... Hall, 106 U.S. 86, 1 Sup.Ct. 128, 27 L.Ed. 114; ... Smale v ... ...
-
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. King
...of real estate from being concluded by a single trial. Somerville v. Donaldson, 26 Minn. 75, 77; Smale v. Mitchell, 143 U.S. 99; Equator Co. v. Hall, 106 U.S. 86. statute does not extend, but restricts, the right of the parties to continue litigation. Keeler v. Dennis, 39 Hun, 18, 21. It is......
-
Ellicott Mach. Corporation v. Vogt Bros. Mfg. Co.
... ... Louisville, Ky., and Piper, Carey & Hall, of Baltimore, Md., ... for plaintiff ... Helm ... Bruce and ... Kenny, 93 U.S. 289, 23 L.Ed. 926, ... joint liability; Equator Co. v. Hall, 106 U.S. 86, 1 Sup.Ct ... 128, 27 L.Ed. 114; and Smale v ... ...
-
Capital Traction Co v. Hof
...as he pleased, unless restrained by a court of equity after repeated verdicts against him. Bac. Abr. 'Ejectment,' I; Smelting Co. v. Hall (1882) 106 U. S. 86, 1 Sup. Ct. 128; Smale v. Mitchell (1892) 143 U. S. 99, 12 Sup. Ct. 3. 'Trial by jury,' in the primary and usual sense of the term at......