Barnes v. Williams
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Babbitt Bros. Trading v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co. (9th Cir. 1932)
- Hill v. Walker (8th Cir. 1909)
- Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard (8th Cir. 1904)
- Cleveland Insurance v. Globe Insurance (Supreme Court of the United States 1879)
- Smith v. Sac County (Supreme Court of the United States 1871)
- Priest v. Seaman (8th Cir. 1920)
- Clark v. Belt (8th Cir. 1915)
- Saltonstall, Collector of Customs v. Birtwell (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
- Ward v. Cochran (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
- Saltonstall v. Birtwell (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
- Hodges v. Easton (Supreme Court of the United States 1882)
- Balt. & Pot. Rr Co. v. Trustees, Etc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1875)
- Holt v. Van Eps (Supreme Court of Dakota 1875)
- Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. Trustees of Sixth Presbyterian Church (Supreme Court of the United States 1875)
- Stickney v. Wilt (Supreme Court of the United States 1874)
- Kuhlman v. Medlinka (Tex. 1867)
- Myers v. Smith (Iowa 1863)
- Dawson v. Watkins (Va. 1843)
- People v. President of Hillsdale & Chatham Turnpike Road (New York Supreme Court 1840)
- Clark v. Halberstadt (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1835)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
stated, that, upon inspecting the record, it had been discovered, that the special verdict found in the case was too imperfect to enable the Court to render a judgment upon it. The claim of the plaintiffs being founded upon a bequest of certain slaves, it was essential to a recovery at law, that the assent of the executor to the legacy should be proved. Although, in the opinion of the Court, there was sufficient evidence in the special verdict from which the jury might have found the fact, yet they have not found it, and the Court could hot, upon a special verdict, intend it. The special verdict was defective in stating the evidence of the fact, instead of the fact itself. It was impossible, therefore, that a judgment could be pronounced for the plaintiff. So, as to the defendant’s defence under the statute of limitations, the special verdict did not find any facts by which the Court could ascertain at what time the right of action accrued. It was«not stated that the plaintiff and defendant were ever resident in the same State at the same time. Although it was found, that E.> D. Barnes, one of the plaintiffs, came into the State of Tennessee after he arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and more than three years before the suit was brought, yet it was not found, that during any part of that time, the defendant,. Williams, was resident in that State. The case was, therefore, too imper *417 feetly stated to enable the Court to decide the questions upon which the opinions of the Judges of the Circuit Court were opposed, and the Gauge was remanded to that Court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo..
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.