Bonnifield v. Price

Supreme Court

Bonnifield v. Price

154 U.S. 672, 14 S. Ct. 1194, 26 L. Ed. 1022, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1296

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 27, 1882

Docket230

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 U.S. 672 (Bonnifield v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonnifield v. Price, 154 U.S. 672, 14 S. Ct. 1194, 26 L. Ed. 1022, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1296 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to bring here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming in a case where the trial was not by jury. It is therefore dismissed on the authority of Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, decided at the present term. The appropriate remedy in this case, under the act of April 7, 1874, ch. 80, Sup. Rev. Stat. .12, was by appeal.

But if we could treat this writ of error as an appeal, thé case is in no condition for examination here, because there is no such statement of facts in the record as the law requires. The bill of exceptions taken in the District Court contains all the evidence, and as- the Supreme Court directed a judgment in.favor of the defendant, it is clear that court passed on other questions than such as were presented on the rulings in the admission of evidence, Under these circumstances a statement of facts such as *673 the statute requires is necessary to enable us to reexamine the case. The writ is dismissed.

Mr. John W. Hammond, Mr. G. TV. Potter and Mr. E. P. Johnson for plaintiff in error. Mr. George F. Price for defendant in error.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to bring here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming in a case where the trial was not by jury. It is therefore dismissed on the authority of Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, decided at the present term. The appropriate remedy in this case, under the act of April 7, 1874, ch. 80, Sup. Rev. Stat. .12, was by appeal.

But if we could treat this writ of error as an appeal, thé case is in no condition for examination here, because there is no such statement of facts in the record as the law requires. The bill of exceptions taken in the District Court contains all the evidence, and as- the Supreme Court directed a judgment in.favor of the defendant, it is clear that court passed on other questions than such as were presented on the rulings in the admission of evidence, Under these circumstances a statement of facts such as *673 the statute requires is necessary to enable us to reexamine the case. The writ is dismissed.

Mr. John W. Hammond, Mr. G. TV. Potter and Mr. E. P. Johnson for plaintiff in error. Mr. George F. Price for defendant in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 U.S. 672, 14 S. Ct. 1194, 26 L. Ed. 1022, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonnifield-v-price-scotus-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack