United States v. Knight Administrator
| Decision Date | 01 December 1861 |
| Citation | 17 L.Ed. 80,17 L.Ed. 76,1 Black 488,66 U.S. 488 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KNIGHT'S ADMINISTRATOR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This cause (a California land claim brought here on appeal by the United States from the decree of the District Court) was reached on the docket at the present term, was called in its regular order, and was argued by counsel on both sides; the opinion of the court upon it was delivered, and a decree pronounced, that the decree of the District Court be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the petition of the claimant. (See ante, p. 227.)
At a subsequent day of the term, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, for the claimant, moved the court so far to modify its order entered therein, as to remand the cause to the court below for further evidence and proceedings, and offered in support of the motion sundry affidavits to show by this new testimony that the court had fallen into error in some conclusions of fact stated in the opinion, and also that some of the testimony was not within the knowledge or power of the appellee when the case was heard in the District Court, but has been discovered since.
Mr. Black, for the United States, hoped the court would relieve him from the duty of making an argument on the motion; thought that it ought not to be heard at all, and gave his reasons for that opinion.
Mr. Johnson maintained the propriety and regularity of the motion, and respectfully insisted on his right to be heard.
The court cannot receive the depositions, nor hear an argument upon the motion. The point has already been decided at the present term in the case of The United States vs. Hensley, and a similar motion overruled.
In the case of Southard et al. vs. Russell, (12 How., 139,) the court held that it could not look beyond the record as transmitted from the inferior court, nor suffer its judgment to be influenced in any respect by new testimony offered here. And that case was before us in the exercise of the general chancery powers conferred by the Constitution, in which a broad discretionary power may be exercised in order to promote the purposes of justice; for in a case prosecuted within that jurisdiction the defeated party, upon the discovery of new evidence, may, after a final decree in this court, obtain leave here to file a bill of review in the court below to review the judgment which this court had rendered. 16 How., 547.
But the jurisdiction which the court exercises in this case is a special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Snyder Estate Co.
... ... of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such land or other property may be ... ...
-
People v. Gayheart
... ... 466, 474, 283 N.W. 651 (1939). However, nearly 100 years ago, the United States Supreme Court announced that "[a]cts done outside a jurisdiction, ... ...
-
Glass Co v. Co
...U.S. at page 549, 52 S.Ct. at page 215, 76 L.Ed. 476. 13 Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139, 158, 159, 13 L.Ed. 927; United States v. Knight's Adm'r, 1 Black 488, 17 L.Ed. 76; Roemer v. Simon, supra. In the Russell case Chief Justice Taney said (12 How. 159, 13 L.Ed. 927): 'It is very clear t......
-
Omaha Elec. Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha
... ... v. CITY OF OMAHA et al. No. 3141.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.May Term, 1914 [216 F. 849] ... Railroad Co., 102 U.S ... 107, 26 L.Ed. 91; United States v. Knight, 1 Black, ... 488, 17 L.Ed. 80; Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall ... ...