Baglin v. Cusenier Co.

156 F. 1019, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5385

This text of 156 F. 1019 (Baglin v. Cusenier Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 156 F. 1019, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5385 (circtsdny 1907).

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

After the time for taking testimony in this case had expired, Hough, J., refused to permit the defendant to offer in evidence the Law Times report of the British decision. This was discretionary with him, and, as no appeal would lie to his action (Ingle v. Jones, 9 Wall. 486, 19 L. Ed. 621), the motion papers on which he acted are not within the rule laid down in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 23 L. Ed. 521.

The motion to require the defendant to strike the motion papers from its printed record is therefore granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ingle v. Jones
76 U.S. 486 (Supreme Court, 1870)
Blease v. Garlington
92 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 F. 1019, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baglin-v-cusenier-co-circtsdny-1907.