Bussard v. Catalino

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Bussard v. Catalino

4 F. Cas. 885, 2 D.C. 421, 2 Cranch 421

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedOctober 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 4 F. Cas. 885 (Bussard v. Catalino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bussard v. Catalino, 4 F. Cas. 885, 2 D.C. 421, 2 Cranch 421 (circtddc 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court,

however, overruled all these objections; Cranch, C. J., doubting as to the last, but assenting, because the parties had agreed to receive that part of the testimony which appeared to be in the deponent’s handwriting.

Verdict for the defendant, by assent of the plaintiff, without any evidence having been produced on either side. The defendant having summoned upwards of thirty witnesses, the plaintiff objected to their being taxed against him.

The Court (nem. con.) directed the clerk not to tax more than three witnesses for the defendant, unless the defendant should satisfy the Court by affidavit of the particular points to prove which they were summoned, and that they were necessary to his defence. Upon such affidavit being made, the Court allowed all to be taxed, excepting six ; there having been nine summoned to one.point.

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

The Court,

however, overruled all these objections; Cranch, C. J., doubting as to the last, but assenting, because the parties had agreed to receive that part of the testimony which appeared to be in the deponent’s handwriting.

Verdict for the defendant, by assent of the plaintiff, without any evidence having been produced on either side. The defendant having summoned upwards of thirty witnesses, the plaintiff objected to their being taxed against him.

The Court (nem. con.) directed the clerk not to tax more than three witnesses for the defendant, unless the defendant should satisfy the Court by affidavit of the particular points to prove which they were summoned, and that they were necessary to his defence. Upon such affidavit being made, the Court allowed all to be taxed, excepting six ; there having been nine summoned to one.point.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F. Cas. 885, 2 D.C. 421, 2 Cranch 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bussard-v-catalino-circtddc-1823.