Evans v. Brown

Citation109 U.S. 180,3 S.Ct. 83,27 L.Ed. 898
PartiesEVANS v. BROWN. 1
Decision Date05 November 1883
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Wm. Woodburn, for plaintiff in error.

W. E. F. Deal and C. J. Hillyer, for defendant in error.

WAITE, C. J.

The writ of error in this case was not made returnable on any particular day. This, if the defect is not cured by amendment, entitles the defendant in error to a dismissal; but the plaintiff in error asks leave, under the authority of section 1005, Rev. St., to amend the writ by inserting the proper return-day. That leave we grant, and therefore overrule the motion to dismiss; but, on looking into the record, we find the case was manifestly brought here for delay only. All the questions presented are so frivolous as not to need further argument. The motion to affirm is granted. Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Greene v. Keithley
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 Noviembre 1936
    ..."deceit" as a ground for exemplary damages. Among these are Brown v. Evans (C.C.Nev.) 17 F. 912, 913, writ of error dismissed 109 U.S. 180, 3 S.Ct. 83, 27 L.Ed. 898; Moyer v. Gordon, 113 Ind. 282, 284, 14 N.E. 476, 477; State ex rel. Scobey v. Stevens, 103 Ind. 55, 58, 2 N.E. 214, 216, 53 A......
  • Brady v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 2 Abril 1932
    ...or compel a conviction that the verdict was the result of prejudice, passion or bias." Brown v. Evans, 17 Fed. 912, affd. Evans v. Brown, 109 U.S. 180, 27 L. Ed. 898; Manley v. Wells, supra; Laughlin v. Rys. Co., supra; Grott v. Shoe Co., 2 S.W. (2d) 785. (e) The verdict is reasonable in co......
  • Bryant v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Diciembre 1995
    ...is, in its constitutional sense, a technical term which has traditionally applied only to criminal prosecutions. Evans v. Brown, 109 U.S. 180, 3 S.Ct. 83, 27 L.Ed. 898 (1883). Departing from this historical rule, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in recent years that particular forfe......
  • Sofian v. Douglas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 30 Diciembre 1929
    ...of the sense of smell, see Jones v. Ry. Co., 99 A.D. 1; Cent. Ry. Co. v. Bannister, 96 Ill.App. 332, 195 Ill. 48; Brown v. Evans, 8 Sawy. 488, 109 U.S. 180; v. Tel. Co., 127 Minn. 373, sense of smell impaired, severe headaches, nasal bones fractured, fracture of lower jaw. Fordyce v. Jackso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT