Maxwell v. Stewart

88 U.S. 71, 22 L. Ed. 564, 21 Wall. 71, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1342
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 18, 1875
Docket150
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 88 U.S. 71 (Maxwell v. Stewart) 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
Maxwell v. Stewart, 88 U.S. 71, 22 L. Ed. 564, 21 Wall. 71, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1342 (1875).

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

On examining the record we find that four errors were assigned in the court below. The first three relate to the form and sufficiency of the evidence offered to prove the record of the judgment in the District Court of the State of Kansas upon which the action was brought. We think the objections were not well taken and that there was no error in overruling them.

The fourth is to the effect that the judgment in the Kansas court was void because the cause was tried by the court without the waiver of a trial by jury entered upon the journal. Whatever might be the effect of this omission in a proceeding to obtain a reversal or vacation of the judgment, it is very certain that it does not render the judgment void. At most it is only error and cannot be taken advantage of collaterally.

Judgment affirmed.

Note.

A motion was afterwards made by Mr. J. S. Watts, for the plaintiff in error, to rehear the case; but the motion was denied.

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

Related

Clark v. Rockwell
435 S.E.2d 664 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1993)
McGee v. Rodriquez
738 P.2d 937 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1987)
A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co. v. Trauger
423 So. 2d 956 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Matter of Lomax
367 A.2d 1272 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)
Seazengers, Inc. v. United States
158 F. Supp. 726 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
Ellern v. Superior Court
160 P.2d 639 (Washington Supreme Court, 1945)
Abbott v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
42 F. Supp. 793 (D. Maryland, 1942)
Peters v. Sturmer
248 N.W. 875 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
Watts v. Alexander, Morrison & Co.
34 F.2d 66 (E.D. New York, 1929)
Owens v. Battenfield
33 F.2d 753 (Eighth Circuit, 1929)
Allard v. La Plain
266 P. 688 (Washington Supreme Court, 1928)
Halligan v. Carlson
135 A. 39 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1926)
Porter v. Hammitt
241 P. 543 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1925)
Hare v. Reily
269 S.W. 473 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Bunch v. United States ex rel. Townsend
252 F. 673 (Eighth Circuit, 1918)
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Crowell
245 F. 668 (D. New Jersey, 1917)
Levison v. Blumenthal
25 Pa. Super. 55 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Hahn v. King
33 So. 121 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1902)
Keyser v. Lowell
117 F. 400 (Eighth Circuit, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 U.S. 71, 22 L. Ed. 564, 21 Wall. 71, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-stewart-scotus-1875.