Baglin v. Cusenier Co.

156 F. 1019, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5385
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Baglin v. Cusenier Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 156 F. 1015

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

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

156 F. 1019 (Baglin v. Cusenier Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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