The Saunders

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

The Saunders

23 F. 303, 23 Blatchf. 185, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1915

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 F. 303 (The Saunders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Saunders, 23 F. 303, 23 Blatchf. 185, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1915 (circtsdny 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Wallace, J.

The- appellee moves to suppress the depositions of witnesses taken in this court, by the appellant because, although the witnesses were present at the instance of the appellant at the hearing in the district court, they were not examined. It is insisted that a party should not be allowed to produce upon appeal testimony which ho has deliberately withheld in the court below.

Although appellate courts in admiralty treat an appeal as a new trial, and exorcise great liberality in permitting new proofs and new pleadings in furtherance of justice, they are not constrained by any arbitrary rules which require them to receive testimony which ought to have been produced but was not produced in the court of original jurisdiction. In the case of The Maybey, 10 Wall. 419, 13 Wall. 738, the supreme court refused to allow a commission to examine witnesses because no excuse was shown in the moving papers why the wit[304]*304nesses were not examined in the courts below. See, also, The Boston, 1 Sumn. 331; Coffin v. Jenkins, 3 Story, 120; Taylor v. Harwood, 1 Taney, 438. In Farrell v. Campbell, 7 Blatchf. 158, Nelson, J., held that where the appellant declined to appear upon the hearing in the district court, upon the refusal of that court to postpone the hearing, he could not be permitted to contest the merits of the decree on appeal.

If parties are permitted to withhold evidence in the district court, take the chances of success without it, and then avail themselves of it by appeal in case of failure, the practice would tend to intolerable abuses. It would be unjust to the adverse party, because he might prefer to abandon his case if the testimony had been presented, rather than incur further expense and labor in litigating. It would be trifling with the court of original jurisdiction by invoking its decision upon an hypothetical case while withdrawing the real case from consideration. It would impose unnecessarily upon a court of appellate jurisdiction the duty which appropriately belongs to a court of original jurisdiction.

The authorities referred to justify the granting of the motion.

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

Wallace, J.

The- appellee moves to suppress the depositions of witnesses taken in this court, by the appellant because, although the witnesses were present at the instance of the appellant at the hearing in the district court, they were not examined. It is insisted that a party should not be allowed to produce upon appeal testimony which ho has deliberately withheld in the court below.

Although appellate courts in admiralty treat an appeal as a new trial, and exorcise great liberality in permitting new proofs and new pleadings in furtherance of justice, they are not constrained by any arbitrary rules which require them to receive testimony which ought to have been produced but was not produced in the court of original jurisdiction. In the case of The Maybey, 10 Wall. 419, 13 Wall. 738, the supreme court refused to allow a commission to examine witnesses because no excuse was shown in the moving papers why the wit[304]*304nesses were not examined in the courts below. See, also, The Boston, 1 Sumn. 331; Coffin v. Jenkins, 3 Story, 120; Taylor v. Harwood, 1 Taney, 438. In Farrell v. Campbell, 7 Blatchf. 158, Nelson, J., held that where the appellant declined to appear upon the hearing in the district court, upon the refusal of that court to postpone the hearing, he could not be permitted to contest the merits of the decree on appeal.

If parties are permitted to withhold evidence in the district court, take the chances of success without it, and then avail themselves of it by appeal in case of failure, the practice would tend to intolerable abuses. It would be unjust to the adverse party, because he might prefer to abandon his case if the testimony had been presented, rather than incur further expense and labor in litigating. It would be trifling with the court of original jurisdiction by invoking its decision upon an hypothetical case while withdrawing the real case from consideration. It would impose unnecessarily upon a court of appellate jurisdiction the duty which appropriately belongs to a court of original jurisdiction.

The authorities referred to justify the granting of the motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. 303, 23 Blatchf. 185, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 1915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-saunders-circtsdny-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack