Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/211/598/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/211/598/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Green County v. Thomas' Executor, 211 U.S. 598 (1909)
Green County v. Thomas' Executor
No. 352
Argued December 18, 1908
Decided January 4, 1909
211 U.S. 598
Syllabus
Green County v. Quinlan, ante, p. 211 U. S. 582, followed as to the liability of a county on bonds issued for railroad assistance.
Where a technical mistake in the petition for writ of error is the result of accident, the Court is justified in allowing an amendment and denying a motion to dismiss.
Looseness of practice should not be encouraged, and while an appellate court should not enter final judgment for appellant without protecting the rights of the appellee, it is not bound to take notice of questions not set forth in the record, nor raised in the assignments of error, or where the appellant did not save his rights in the court below.
A finding that the plaintiffs below are bona fide holders of bonds and entitled to sue in the circuit court amounts to a finding that the plaintiffs are joint owners, and is sufficient to support jurisdiction if the aggregate amount exceeds $2,000.
If the defendant obligor owed the amount to the plaintiff at the commencement of the action, it is not interested in the division of the verdict.
This Court will not open the way to the raising of technical questions, and a plaintiff in error is only entitled to a decision on questions properly brought to its attention.
146 F.9d 9 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
