NORTH v. McDONALD

Supreme Court

NORTH v. McDONALD

154 U.S. 649, 14 S. Ct. 1207, 25 L. Ed. 535, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1380

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 10, 1879

Docket41

StatusPublished

This text of 154 U.S. 649 (NORTH v. McDONALD) 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

NORTH v. McDONALD, 154 U.S. 649, 14 S. Ct. 1207, 25 L. Ed. 535, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1380 (1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs below evidently intended to bring this action under sec. 5129 of the Revised Statutes, but the averments in their petition are only sufficient to make a case under sec. 5046. While the court would certainly have been justified in leaving the question of fraud to the jury upon the evidence as it stood, we think, if a judgment had been rendered against the defendants, it might with propriety have been set aside as being contrary to what had been proven. For this reason, although it might have been more in accordance with correct practice not to take the- case from the jury, we will not disturb the judgment. No request was made for leave to amend the petition, and we must consider the case here as made by the pleadings, and not as the parties may have intended to make it. The judgment is affirmed.

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.

The plaintiffs below evidently intended to bring this action under sec. 5129 of the Revised Statutes, but the averments in their petition are only sufficient to make a case under sec. 5046. While the court would certainly have been justified in leaving the question of fraud to the jury upon the evidence as it stood, we think, if a judgment had been rendered against the defendants, it might with propriety have been set aside as being contrary to what had been proven. For this reason, although it might have been more in accordance with correct practice not to take the- case from the jury, we will not disturb the judgment. No request was made for leave to amend the petition, and we must consider the case here as made by the pleadings, and not as the parties may have intended to make it. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 U.S. 649, 14 S. Ct. 1207, 25 L. Ed. 535, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-v-mcdonald-scotus-1879.