Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MATTHEWS |
| Citation | 28 L.Ed. 109,3 S.Ct. 570,110 U.S. 174 |
| Parties | REDFIELD, Ex'x, and another, Ex'r, v. YSTALYFERA IRON Co |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1884 |
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
in error.
A. W. Griswold, for defendant in error.
MATTHEWS, J.
This action was begun on December 30, 1854, in the supreme court of New York by the defendant in error to recover from the collector of the port of New York money alleged to have been illegally exacted by him for customs dues and paid under protest. It was removed by certiorari to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, in which, on December 15, 1856, the testimony having been heard, it appears by the record that 'by direction of the court and consent of counsel the jury find a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, subject to the opinion of the court upon a case to be made, with liberty to either party to turn the same into a bill of exceptions, and subject to adjustment at the custom-house as to the amount.'
Page 175
The next step in the cause taken in court was on June 9, 1882, when, on motion of the plaintiffs' attorney, the plaintiffs in error, as personal representatives of the defendant, who had died, were made parties. And then, on January 19, 1883, it was ordered that the case, of which it appeared a copy had been served by the plaintiffs' attorney on the United States attorney in January, 1857, be considered as having been then agreed upon and settled between the parties, and that the same be filed in the office of the clerk as part of the record in the case. On April 30, 1883, the cause was heard upon that case made and served pursuant to the verdict of December 16, 1856, and it was thereupon ordered that judgment be entered on the verdict for the sum of $715.70, with interest thereon from December 8, 1854, and for costs; and on August 22, 1883, a formal judgment was entered against the plaintiffs in error for the said sum and interest, as aforesaid, said, amounting to $2,128.16 damages, besides costs. To reverse that judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.
The case made, which by the terms of the verdict either party was at liberty to turn into a bill of exceptions, sets forth the entire evidence adduced at the trial, but is not an agreed statement of facts, nor a special verdict, nor a finding of facts by the court, and contains no exceptions. It cannot, therefore, be treated as the basis for any assignment of errors, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California, No. E-5.
...to the properties or their oil contents by the infiltration of water or otherwise." And see Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Company, 1884, 110 U.S. 174, 3 S.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109; United States v. Sanborn, 1890, 135 U.S. 271, 10 S.Ct. 812, 34 L.Ed. 112; Hammond v. United States, C.C.A.9, 1917, ......
-
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc, No. 90-256
...many state court decisions sustaining such dismissals, but even from language in this Court's opinion in Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176 [3 S.Ct. 570, 571, 28 L.Ed. 109 (1884) ]. It also has the sanction of wide usage among the District Courts. It would require a much cle......
-
Speed v. Transamerica Corporation, Civ. A. No. 480
...rate of 3%. See also, Kaufman v. Kaufman's Adm'r, 292 Ky. 351, 166 S.W.2d 860, 144 A.L.R. 866. 71 E. g., Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176, 3 S.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109; The Smoky City, 3 Cir., 88 F.2d 72 The James McWilliams, 2 Cir., 240 F. 951, 952. 73 The Ansaldo San Giorgi......
-
New York Trust Co. v. Detroit, T. & I. Ry. Co., 3099
...the plaintiff for a default on the part of his debtor, and its allowance is often a matter of discretion. Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176, 3 Sup.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109; Redfield v. Bartels, 139 U.S. 694, 701, 11 Sup.Ct. 683, 35 L.Ed. 310; Jourolmon v. Ewing, 80 F. 604, 607......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California, No. E-5.
...to the properties or their oil contents by the infiltration of water or otherwise." And see Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Company, 1884, 110 U.S. 174, 3 S.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109; United States v. Sanborn, 1890, 135 U.S. 271, 10 S.Ct. 812, 34 L.Ed. 112; Hammond v. United States, C.C.A.9, 1917, ......
-
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc, No. 90-256
...many state court decisions sustaining such dismissals, but even from language in this Court's opinion in Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176 [3 S.Ct. 570, 571, 28 L.Ed. 109 (1884) ]. It also has the sanction of wide usage among the District Courts. It would require a much cle......
-
Speed v. Transamerica Corporation, Civ. A. No. 480
...rate of 3%. See also, Kaufman v. Kaufman's Adm'r, 292 Ky. 351, 166 S.W.2d 860, 144 A.L.R. 866. 71 E. g., Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176, 3 S.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109; The Smoky City, 3 Cir., 88 F.2d 72 The James McWilliams, 2 Cir., 240 F. 951, 952. 73 The Ansaldo San Giorgi......
-
New York Trust Co. v. Detroit, T. & I. Ry. Co., 3099
...the plaintiff for a default on the part of his debtor, and its allowance is often a matter of discretion. Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 176, 3 Sup.Ct. 570, 28 L.Ed. 109; Redfield v. Bartels, 139 U.S. 694, 701, 11 Sup.Ct. 683, 35 L.Ed. 310; Jourolmon v. Ewing, 80 F. 604, 607......