Evans v. Stettnisch
| Decision Date | 10 May 1893 |
| Docket Number | No. 279,279 |
| Citation | 149 U.S. 605,37 L.Ed. 866,13 S.Ct. 931 |
| Parties | EVANS v. STETTNISCH et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
The facts in this case are these: On November 10, 1884, plaintiff, now plaintiff in error, filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska an 'amended and reformed petition.' Nothing seems to have been done thereafter until 1887, when at the May term, and on the 2d day of May, the case was 'ordered continued.' On August 18, 1887, the record recites:
An answer was filed on August 20, 1887, and a reply on the 22d of September. On the 4th day of November appears an entry of a trial, with a verdict for the defendants, and judgment thereon. This entry opens with this recital: 'Now come the parties herein, by their attorneys; and also come the following named persons as jurors, to wit.' On November 12th, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment, and for a new trial, on the ground that after the case had been continued the order of continuance had been vacated in the absence of his counsel, and without notice; and because he had no notice or information that the cause stood for trial at that term, and had thus been prevented from presenting his evidence to the jury. In support of this motion the affidavit of one of plaintiff's counsel was filed, which, after stating the fact of the continuance, and the order setting it aside, continued as follows:
'Said order was so obtained during the absence of plaintiff's counsel and without notice to plaintiff or to affiant that application would be made to the court for the vacation of said order of continuance, and no notice or information whatever was served upon or communicated to said plaintiff that said cause stood for trial at this term, until on the 11th day of November, 1887, and after judgment had been entered therein.'
The motion having been overruled, plaintiff sued out a writ of error from this court.
John S. Gergory, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The record of the trial shows that the parties appeared by their attorneys; discloses no application for a postponement, no objection to proceeding at the time, and no error in the course of the trial. As against this,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.
...letters were before the court. We agree with appellee that such evidence is not part of the record before us. Evans v. Stettnisch, 149 U. S. 605, 13 S. Ct. 931, 37 L. Ed. 866; Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle Ranche Company, 128 U. S. 383, 9 S. Ct. 101, 32 L. Ed. Evidence was, however, received to......
-
People v. Tielke
...rule followed in other jurisdictions. 1 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 336; 1 Thompson on Trials (2d Ed.) 962; 2 Id. 2774; Evans v. Stettnisch, 149 U. S. 605, 13 Sup. Ct. 931, 37 L. Ed. 866;Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Co. v. Sixth Presbyterian Church, 91 U. S. 127, 23 L. Ed. 260. These affidavits, not......
-
Middleton v. Hartford Acc. & Indemnity Co.
...R. R. Co. v. Trustees, 91 U.S. 127, 23 L.Ed. 260; England v. Gebhardt, 112 U.S. 502, 5 S.Ct. 287, 28 L.Ed. 811; Evans v. Stettnisch, 149 U.S. 605, 13 S.Ct. 931, 37 L.Ed. 866; Lees v. United States, 150 U. S. 476, 14 S.Ct. 163, 37 L.Ed. 1150; Bassing v. Cady, 208 U.S. 386, 28 S.Ct. 392, 52 L......
-
In re McCall
... ... the record by evidence dehors the record. 2 Ency.Pl.& Pr. pp ... 296, 298, 436; 2 Ency.Pl.&Pr. 434; Evans v ... Stettnisch, 149 U.S. 605, 13 Sup.Ct. 931, 37 L.Ed. 866 ... Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the verity of ... the record and ... ...