Maxwell v. Stewart
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co. v. Trauger (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
- Matter of Lomax (D.C. 1977)
- American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. Paste-Ups Unlimited, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1974)
- Abbott v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1942)
- Allard v. La Plain (Wash. 1928)
- Porter v. Hammitt (Colo. 1925)
- Hare v. Reily (Tex. App. 1925)
- Bunch v. United States ex rel. Townsend (8th Cir. 1918)
- Judson v. Gage (2d Cir. 1899)
- Clark v. Rockwell (W. Va. 1993)
- McGee v. Rodriquez (N.M. Ct. App. 1987)
- Seazengers, Inc. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1957)
- Ellern v. Superior Court (Wash. 1945)
- Peters v. Sturmer (Mich. 1933)
- Owens v. Battenfield (8th Cir. 1929)
- Watts v. Alexander, Morrison & Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 1929)
- Halligan v. Carlson (Conn. 1926)
- Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Crowell (District Court, D. New Jersey 1917)
- Levison v. Blumenthal (Pa. Super. Ct. 1904)
- Hahn v. King (La. 1902)
- Keyser v. Lowell (8th Cir. 1902)
- Humphries v. District of Columbia (Supreme Court of the United States 1899)
- District of Columbia v. Humphries (D.C. Cir. 1898)
- Barbee v. Shannon (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory 1897)
- Belt v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1894)
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.
On examining the record we find that four errors were assigned in the court below. The first three relate to the form and sufficiency of the evidence offered to prove the record of the judgment in the District Court of the State of Kansas upon which the action was brought. We think the objections were not well taken and that there was no error in overruling them.
The fourth is to the effect that the judgment in the Kansas court was void because the cause was tried by the court without the waiver of a trial by jury entered upon the journal. Whatever might be the effect of this omission in a proceeding to obtain a reversal or vacation of the judgment, it is very certain that it does not render the judgment void. At most it is only error and cannot be taken advantage of collaterally.
Judgment affirmed.
Note.
A motion was afterwards made by Mr. J. S. Watts, for the plaintiff in error, to rehear the case; but the motion was denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.