Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Converse

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Converse

10 F. 825, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 3, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 10 F. 825 (Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Converse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vermont Farm Machine Co. v. Converse, 10 F. 825, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340 (circtdct 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Shipman, D. J.

This is a motion to “reopen” the cause and allow the defendant to take additional testimony apon 1G points. The testimony seems by the record to have been closed on November 25, 1881, when the plaintiff’s rebutting testimony was taken. The defendant did not then suggest that lie was intending to reply. He does not now state that the evidence was not then as accessible and as well known to him as it is now, or that it is material. He says that the statements of the plaintiff which it is desired to answer “consist for the most part of new matter, not yet set forth or alluded to in the prima facie case made by the plaintiff, and not being in reply to anything set up by the defendant,” and that the testimony “tends to injure him and prejudice his rights in the present suit.”

I am of opinion that when the plaintiff closed his rebutting testimony the defendant did not think that this new matter required any reply or was of importance. Subsequent reflection leads him to fear that, if it is unanswered, it may prejudice his case, but he does not think that it will injure him, or that it is of importance.

If the case is opened, and the defendant is allowed to take testimony upon 1G points which are not claimed to be material to the case, I think that the present compact record would become needlessly voluminous, and that needless expense would be imposed upon both parties.

The motion is denied.

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

Shipman, D. J.

This is a motion to “reopen” the cause and allow the defendant to take additional testimony apon 1G points. The testimony seems by the record to have been closed on November 25, 1881, when the plaintiff’s rebutting testimony was taken. The defendant did not then suggest that lie was intending to reply. He does not now state that the evidence was not then as accessible and as well known to him as it is now, or that it is material. He says that the statements of the plaintiff which it is desired to answer “consist for the most part of new matter, not yet set forth or alluded to in the prima facie case made by the plaintiff, and not being in reply to anything set up by the defendant,” and that the testimony “tends to injure him and prejudice his rights in the present suit.”

I am of opinion that when the plaintiff closed his rebutting testimony the defendant did not think that this new matter required any reply or was of importance. Subsequent reflection leads him to fear that, if it is unanswered, it may prejudice his case, but he does not think that it will injure him, or that it is of importance.

If the case is opened, and the defendant is allowed to take testimony upon 1G points which are not claimed to be material to the case, I think that the present compact record would become needlessly voluminous, and that needless expense would be imposed upon both parties.

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. 825, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vermont-farm-machine-co-v-converse-circtdct-1882.