Evans v. State Nat. Bank

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana

Evans v. State Nat. Bank

19 F. 676

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 15, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 F. 676 (Evans v. State Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. State Nat. Bank, 19 F. 676 (circtedla 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Billings, J.

The sole question which can be considered is as to the effect to be given to an alleged verbal agreement. It is the general rule that such an agreement cannot be noticed by the court. Parker v. Root, 7 Johns. 320; Dubois v. Roosa, 3 Johns. 145, and num[677]*677erous cases there cited in note, as Huff v. State, 29 Ga. 424; Reese v. Mahoney, 21 Cal. 305; and Shippen’s Lessee v. Bush, 1 Dall. 250. Eule 22 of this court is but a statement of the universal canon or precept which is observed by all courts where the matter of rights is involved. That rule is as follows: “No verbal agreement of parties or their counsel, touching any causo pending before this court, shall be deemed of any validity, or be noticed in any way, by the court, in caso of dispute or disagreement.” The rule is thus stated in Hoff. Cli. Pr.: “It will be noticed that the agreement or'consent, unless thus established, is not even to be suggested against the party; and our chancellors have been strict in adhering to this rule.” Page 20. The necessity and wisdom of the restriction is manifest by its universal adoption by the courts, and, having been farther emphasized by being enrolled as a rule of this court, is obligatory, and must be followed. The rule must therefore be discharged.

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

Billings, J.

The sole question which can be considered is as to the effect to be given to an alleged verbal agreement. It is the general rule that such an agreement cannot be noticed by the court. Parker v. Root, 7 Johns. 320; Dubois v. Roosa, 3 Johns. 145, and num[677]*677erous cases there cited in note, as Huff v. State, 29 Ga. 424; Reese v. Mahoney, 21 Cal. 305; and Shippen’s Lessee v. Bush, 1 Dall. 250. Eule 22 of this court is but a statement of the universal canon or precept which is observed by all courts where the matter of rights is involved. That rule is as follows: “No verbal agreement of parties or their counsel, touching any causo pending before this court, shall be deemed of any validity, or be noticed in any way, by the court, in caso of dispute or disagreement.” The rule is thus stated in Hoff. Cli. Pr.: “It will be noticed that the agreement or'consent, unless thus established, is not even to be suggested against the party; and our chancellors have been strict in adhering to this rule.” Page 20. The necessity and wisdom of the restriction is manifest by its universal adoption by the courts, and, having been farther emphasized by being enrolled as a rule of this court, is obligatory, and must be followed. The rule must therefore be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-state-nat-bank-circtedla-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack