Kelsey v. Forsyth
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hagner v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1931)
- United States v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1909)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Shirk (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1907)
- Clark v. Doerr (5th Cir. 1906)
- Swift & Co. v. Jones (4th Cir. 1906)
- United States v. One Carton Positive Motion Picture Film Entitled "491" (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
- State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Nixon (Mo. 1911)
- Sawtelle v. Weymouth (Wash. 1896)
- Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. (9th Cir. 1896)
- Belt v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1894)
- Lynch v. Grayson (N.M. 1893)
- Rogers v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
- Bond v. Dustin (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
- United States v. Emholt (Supreme Court of the United States 1882)
- Harris v. Sweetland (Mich. 1882)
- Town of Lyons v. Lyons Nat. Bank (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York 1881)
- Wear v. Mayer (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1880)
- People v. Clews (New York Supreme Court 1878)
- Opening of Gold Street v. Newton (Supreme Court of Dakota 1878)
- People v. Chapman (New York Supreme Court 1865)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.
. An action of ejectment was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff, for a certain parcel of land described in the declaration, and upon the trial the verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff; a motion was afterwards made to .set, aside the judgment and for a new trial,'and' the judgment was accordingly set aside, and a new trial granted upon the terms mentioned in the transcript.- In the proceedings upon this new trial, the parties agreed to waive a trial by jury, and that both matters of law and of fact should be submitted to the decision, of the court. The case was proceeded in according to this agreement, and the court, as the record states, found the issué in favor of the plaintiff, (Forsyth,) and entered judgment accordingly; and to this decision, and to all the rulings and decisions of the court in the previous stageaof the cause, the defendants (Kelsey and Hotchkiss) excepted, and sued out a,. . writ of error to bring the case before this court.
It will be seen from this statement that in-a common-law *88 action of ejectment the case was submitted to tbe court upon the evidence, without tbe intervention of a jury, leaving it to thd court to decide the* fact, as well as tbe law; upon tbe evidence and admissions before it.. Tbe case, therefore, is the same in principle with that of Guild and others v. Frontin, 18 How., 135. And the doctrine in that case was reaffirmed in Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How., 428, and tbe .grounds upon which it résts fully set forth. It is unnecessary to repeat here what was stated in these two decisions. It is sufficient to say that the agreement of parties nannot authorize this court to revise a judgment of an inferior court in any other mode of proceeding than that which the law prescribes, nor can the laws,of a State, regulating the. proceedings of its own courts, authorize a district or Circuit- Court sitting in- the State to depart from the modes of proceeding and rules prescribed by the acts of Congress. '
The judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be af-< firmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.