Supreme Court of the United States, 1870

Basset v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 24, 1870 · Miller

76 U.S. 38; 19 L. Ed. 548; 9 Wall. 38; 1869 U.S. LEXIS 937 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

52 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. George Gordon Liddy (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Peltier v. State (Idaho 1991)
State v. Johnson (Idaho 1980)
Thomas v. State (Alaska 1977)
In re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of Alexander Hartzell, a Witness (3d Cir. 1976)
Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. (2d Cir. 1948)
United States v. Kenneth James Lundien (4th Cir. 1985)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978)
United States v. Richard W. Emens (9th Cir. 1977)
Burke v. United States (D.C. 1954)
Oxman v. United States (8th Cir. 1945)
In re Allen (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1940)
Rowley v. Welch (D.C. Cir. 1940)
United States v. Nugent (6th Cir. 1938)
People ex rel. Miresi v. Murphy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1938)
United States v. Wittmeyer (District Court, D. Nevada 1936)
Montgomery v. State (Ala. 1935)
United States v. Nordbye (8th Cir. 1935)
Tweed v. Lockton (Superior Court of Delaware 1932)
United States v. Benz (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
Armenta v. United States (9th Cir. 1931)
First Nat. Bank of San Rafael v. Philippine Refining Corp. of New York (9th Cir. 1931)
Gentry v. Missouri ex rel. Butler (8th Cir. 1929)
Pennsylvania R. R. v. Montgomery (2d Cir. 1925)
United States v. Howe (2d Cir. 1922)

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

Mr. Justice MILLER,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Both the pleas of the defendants were pleas of nul tiel record, the first denying the existence of the recognizance, and the second denying the pending of the indictment at the time the recognizance was taken. A plea of nul tiel record to a supposed record of the court in which the plea is made is tried by the court, because it is an issue to be determined by the inspection of its own records. But where the record of a foreign court is denied by this plea the issue is to be tried by a jury, because the existence of the record to be inspected must first be made by proof, which it may be necessary to submit to a jury: *

When a court sits in place of a jury and finds the facts this court cannot review that finding. If there is any error in such case, shown by the record, in admitting or rejecting testimony, it can be reviewed here. But when the court, by permission of the parties, takes the place of the jury, its finding of facts is conclusive, precisely as if a jury had found them by verdict.

In the ease before us, however, the court did not sit to supply the place of a jury, because the record, the existence of which was denied by both pleas, was the record of the court in which the pleas were made. When, therefore, such record as did exist in regard to the matters in issue, was pre~ sented to the court, the only question to be determined, on which the court could exercise any judgment, was a question of law, namely, whether in legal effect there was found a *41 record of the recognizance, and a subsisting legal judgment of conviction and punishment prior to the taking of the recognizance.

Both these questions of law are proper for review here, and are fairly presented by the agreed statement of what the record is.

1. In regard to the first, there is no doubt that the recognizance was taken, and remains in the records of the court.

2. As regards the second plea, it appears by the record that all which took place took place during the same term of the court, and we see no reason to doubt that the court had power during that term, for proper cause, to set aside the judgment rendered on confession. This control of the court over its own judgment during the term is of every-day practice. *

The judgment then being set aside the indictment remained, and the recognizance of the prisoner and his sureties to appear and answer to it was valid.

Judgment affirmed.

1 Institute, 117, 270; Collins v. Matthews, 5 East, 473; Hall v Williams, 6 Pickering, 117; Pattin v. Miller, 13 Sergeant & Rawle, 254.

King v. Price, 6 East, 323; Cheang-kee v. United States, 3 Wallace, 320.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.