Yerrington v. Putnam

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

Yerrington v. Putnam

30 F. Cas. 810, 2 Ban. & A. 601

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

DecidedApril 15, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 810 (Yerrington v. Putnam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yerrington v. Putnam, 30 F. Cas. 810, 2 Ban. & A. 601 (circtdnj 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

NIXON, District Judge.

The bill is filed in this case to set aside a decree of this court, heretofore made in a suit between the parties. The defendant being in court, an application is now made for a rule to show cause why the former decree should not be reversed, and the injunction granted should not be suspended until the further order of the court.

There are two grounds only on which the court will grant a rule in such cases: (1) When the original decree shows upon its face that it is contrary to law; (2) upon the allegation and prima facie proof of the existence of material facts which, if known, would have hindered the decree, and which the complainant in the bill of review did not know at the former trial, and could not have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. -> •

I have examined the bill, and do not find any reason therein alleged, which would authorize the court to grant the rule asked for.

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

NIXON, District Judge.

The bill is filed in this case to set aside a decree of this court, heretofore made in a suit between the parties. The defendant being in court, an application is now made for a rule to show cause why the former decree should not be reversed, and the injunction granted should not be suspended until the further order of the court.

There are two grounds only on which the court will grant a rule in such cases: (1) When the original decree shows upon its face that it is contrary to law; (2) upon the allegation and prima facie proof of the existence of material facts which, if known, would have hindered the decree, and which the complainant in the bill of review did not know at the former trial, and could not have discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. -> •

I have examined the bill, and do not find any reason therein alleged, which would authorize the court to grant the rule asked for.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 810, 2 Ban. & A. 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yerrington-v-putnam-circtdnj-1877.