Supreme Court of the United States, 1872

Bethell v. Mathews

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 12, 1872

80 U.S. 1; 20 L. Ed. 556; 13 Wall. 1; 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1300 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. Miles Taylor and C. N. Morse, for the plaintiff in error, , Mr. T. J. Durant, contra:

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Bank of Edenton v. United States (4th Cir. 1945)
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (District Court, S.D. New York 1941)
Eric L. v. HHS (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1996)
Mercelis v. Wilson (Supreme Court of the United States 1915)
Pearce v. Albright (N.M. 1904)
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Adams (Miss. 1902)
Orange County Fruit Exchange v. Hubbell (N.M. 1900)
In re Gribbon (2d Cir. 1893)
Pepper v. Labrot (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky 1881)
Norwich Transportation Company v. Flint (Supreme Court of the United States 1872)

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

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

It has been often decided that a plaintiff in error cannot take advantage of rulings upon exceptions in his own favor, even if erroneous. Nor can a statement of facts signed by *3 counsel be noticed upon error. * In this case, then, not only was the statement so signed, but it’ does not appear to have been made and filed until after the judgment.

There is, therefore, no error in the record, or none of which we can take notice. The judgment of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana must be

Affirmed.

Generes v. Bonnemer, 7 Wallace, 564; Avendano v. Gay, 8 Id. 376; Kearney v. Case, 12 Id. 276.

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