NORTH v. MCDONALD, 154 U.S. 649 (1879)

U.S. Supreme Court

NORTH v. MCDONALD, 154 U.S. 649 (1879)

154 U.S. 649

ORLANDO NORTH et al.
v.
WILLIAM McDONALD et al.
No. 41.

November 10, 1879

C. W. Bramel and W. W. Corlett, for plaintiffs in error.

Edward P. Johnson, for defendants in error.

Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs below evidently intended to bring this action under section 5129 of the Revised Statutes, but the averments in their petition are only sufficient to make a case under section 5046. While the court would certainly have been justified in leaving the question of fraud to the jury upon the evidence as it stood, we think, if a judgment had been rendered against the defendants, it might with propriety have been set aside, as being contrary to what had been proven. For this reason, although it might have been more in accordance with correct practice not to take the case from the jury, we will not disturb the judgment. No request was made for leave to amend the petition, and we must consider the case here as made by the pleadings, and not as the parties may have intended to make it.

The judgment is affirmed.


U.S. Supreme Court

NORTH v. MCDONALD, 154 U.S. 649 (1879)

 154 U.S. 649

ORLANDO NORTH et al.
v.
WILLIAM McDONALD et al.
No. 41.

November 10, 1879

C. W. Bramel and W. W. Corlett, for plaintiffs in error.

Edward P. Johnson, for defendants in error.

Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs below evidently intended to bring this action under section 5129 of the Revised Statutes, but the averments in their petition are only sufficient to make a case under section 5046. While the court would certainly have been justified in leaving the question of fraud to the jury upon the evidence as it stood, we think, if a judgment had been rendered against the defendants, it might with propriety have been set aside, as being contrary to what had been proven. For this reason, although it might have been more in accordance with correct practice not to take the case from the jury, we will not disturb the judgment. No request was made for leave to amend the petition, and we must consider the case here as made by the pleadings, and not as the parties may have intended to make it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.