Supreme Court of the United States, 1883

County of Madison v. Warren

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 18, 1883 · Waite

106 U.S. 622; 2 S. Ct. 86; 27 L. Ed. 311; 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1593 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles P. Wise for the plaintiff in error., Mr. T. C. Mather for the .defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Harris v. Newsom (8th Cir. 1927)
Guiles v. United States (9th Cir. 1938)
Noone v. Sinner (8th Cir. 1928)
James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Seimer (7th Cir. 1926)
Graver Corp. v. Hercules Gasoline Co. (9th Cir. 1926)
Twist v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. (8th Cir. 1925)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Whittaker (9th Cir. 1925)
Shields v. Mongollon Exploration Co. (9th Cir. 1905)
Ford v. Grimmett (5th Cir. 1922)
City of Cleveland v. Walsh Construction Co. (6th Cir. 1922)
T. H. Flood & Co. v. Bates (7th Cir. 1922)
Erkel v. United States (9th Cir. 1909)
Ham v. Edgell (5th Cir. 1901)
Bond v. Dustin (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
United States v. National City Bank of New York (2d Cir. 1922)
Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. (9th Cir. 1896)
United States ex rel. Deimel v. Arnold (7th Cir. 1895)
Branch v. Texas Lumber Manuf'g Co. (5th Cir. 1893)

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. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a case tried and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury. The record does not show any stipulation in writing waiving a jury. The errors assigned all relate to. rulings of the court on the trial, excepted to at the time, and presented by a bill of exceptions. The rule is well settled, •that if a written stipulation waiving a jury is not in some way *623 shown affirmatively in the record, none of the questions decided at the trial can be re-examined here on writ of error. Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Gilman v. Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co., 91 U. S. 603; Boogher v. New York Life Insurance Co., 103 id. 90; Hodges v. Easton, ante, p. 408.

For this reason, and without passing on any of the questions presented by the assignment of errors, the judgment is '

Affirmed.

Note.— County of Alexander v. Kimball, error to the same court as the preceding case, was submitted by Mr. William B. Gilbert for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. T. C. Mather for the defendant in error. It involved the .precise question decided in that case, and a judgment to the same effect was rendered.

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