Davison v. Gibson

Eighth Circuit

Davison v. Gibson

76 F. 717, 22 C.C.A. 511, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1896

DocketNo. 605

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 F. 717 (Davison v. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davison v. Gibson, 76 F. 717, 22 C.C.A. 511, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (8th Cir. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. When it was first here, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial. Davison v. Gibson, 12 U. S. App. 362, 5 C. C. A. 543, and 56 Fed. 443. When the cause was called for a new trial in the lower court, the plaintiff was not ready for trial, and, the court refusing to grant a continuance, the plaintiff, before the jury was called or the trial begun, moved for leave to dismiss his action. This motion the court denied, and required the plaintiff to proceed with the trial of the case. The Arkansas Code of Practice, which is in force in the Indian Territory, provides:

“An action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action: First. By the plaintiff before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court, where the trial is by the court. * * *

“The plaintiff may dismiss any action in vacation, in the office of the cleric, on the payment of all costs that may have accrued therein, except an action to recover the possession of specific personal property, when the property has been delivered to the plaintiff.”

Mansf. Dig. Ark. p. 994, c. 119, §§ 5102, 5103.

The record in the case shows that the defendant gave a bond to retain and did retain the possession of the property sought to be re-plevied. The plaintiff, therefore, had an undoubted right to dismiss his action at any time “before the final submission of the case to the jury or to the court.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lakin Tp., 19 U. S. App. 440, 8 C. C. A. 437, and 59 Fed. 989.

Other errors are assigned, based on remarks and rulings of the court which are not likely to occur on another trial, and we therefore omit any notice of them. The judgment of the United States, court in the Indian Territory is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

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

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. When it was first here, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial. Davison v. Gibson, 12 U. S. App. 362, 5 C. C. A. 543, and 56 Fed. 443. When the cause was called for a new trial in the lower court, the plaintiff was not ready for trial, and, the court refusing to grant a continuance, the plaintiff, before the jury was called or the trial begun, moved for leave to dismiss his action. This motion the court denied, and required the plaintiff to proceed with the trial of the case. The Arkansas Code of Practice, which is in force in the Indian Territory, provides:

“An action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action: First. By the plaintiff before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court, where the trial is by the court. * * *

“The plaintiff may dismiss any action in vacation, in the office of the cleric, on the payment of all costs that may have accrued therein, except an action to recover the possession of specific personal property, when the property has been delivered to the plaintiff.”

Mansf. Dig. Ark. p. 994, c. 119, §§ 5102, 5103.

The record in the case shows that the defendant gave a bond to retain and did retain the possession of the property sought to be re-plevied. The plaintiff, therefore, had an undoubted right to dismiss his action at any time “before the final submission of the case to the jury or to the court.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lakin Tp., 19 U. S. App. 440, 8 C. C. A. 437, and 59 Fed. 989.

Other errors are assigned, based on remarks and rulings of the court which are not likely to occur on another trial, and we therefore omit any notice of them. The judgment of the United States, court in the Indian Territory is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 F. 717, 22 C.C.A. 511, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davison-v-gibson-ca8-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack