Johnson v. United States
Decision Date | 10 October 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 12653,20016.,12653 |
Citation | 35 F.2d 355 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES. DENNIS et al. v. SAME. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Wm. G. Beardslee and G. K. Betts, both of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs.
Lester E. Pope, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
In these war risk insurance cases set for trial, motions "for a change of venue" are filed, based on affidavits evidently of "stock" form; for they are identical in language, save that in the latter the masculine pronouns of the former, where not unchanged, are in instances worked over to the feminine. The latter, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
They are accompanied by a certificate of counsel "that he believes this affidavit and application for a change of venue has been made in good faith."
As no statute authorizing a change of venue in present circumstances is cited or found, the motions are denied.
It may be, however, that the intent is to invoke section 25, Title 28, USCA, which provides that:
This section invoked, it is settled law, that however false and libelous be affidavit and certificate, they cannot be even denied, and must be accepted as true; and if in form and substance they comply with said statute and are legally sufficient to give fair support to the charge of bias or prejudice, it is the duty of the judge to retire from the case; if they do not, it is equally his duty to proceed. See Berger v. U. S., 255 U. S. 22, 41 S. Ct. 230, 65 L. Ed. 481, and cases cited; Benedict v. Seiberling (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 831, and cases cited.
In view of this state of the law, it is appropriate to some scan the background before analyzing the affidavits. The records of the court disclose some scores of like cases, the majority of which were filed this year on the eve of expiration of the extended statute of limitations, most of them in forma pauperis as are these at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
...Realty Trust, 140 F.Supp. 522, 526 (N.D.Ill.1956); United States v. Valenti, 120 F.Supp. 80, 88 (D.N.J.1954); Johnson v. United States, 35 F.2d 355, 357 (W.D.Wash.1929). 96 United States v. Valenti, 120 F.Supp. 80, 87 97 Knapp v. Kinsey, 232 F.2d 458, 466 (6th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 ......
-
United States v. Gilboy, Crim. No. 12880.
...supra, 255 U.S. at page 33, 41 S.Ct. at page 233. Time, place, persons, occasions and circumstances must be set forth, Johnson v. United States, supra, 35 F.2d at page 357; Morse v. Lewis, supra, 54 F.2d at page 1031; United States v. Parker, supra, 23 F.Supp. at page 884, with at least the......
-
United States v. Mitchell
...judge or litigant but only with what the latter is willing to incorporate in an affidavit and counsel to indorse." Johnson v. United States, 35 F.2d 355, 357 (W.D.Wash.1929). The mere filing of an affidavit of prejudice does not automatically disqualify a judge, United States v. Gilboy, 162......
-
Matter of Evans
...in an affidavit and counsel to indorse." United States v. Hanrahan, 248 F.Supp. 471, 475 (D.D.C.1965), quoting Johnson v. United States, 35 F.2d 355, 357 (D.C.W.D.Wash.1929). This case presents us with unusual circumstances, however. When a trial judge by his own action has injected additio......