Generes v. Bonnemer, 74 U.S. 564 (1868)

U.S. Supreme Court

Generes v. Bonnemer, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 564 564 (1868)

Generes v. Bonnemer

74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 564

Syllabus

A judgment affirmed in a case where the only ruling of the court to be found in the record was a judgment rendered in favor of a plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money, where there was no question raised in the pleadings no bill of exceptions and no instructions or ruling of the court, and where what purported to be a statement of facts, signed by the judge, was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued.

In this case, which came on error to the circuit court for Louisiana, it appeared that the only ruling of the court to

Page 74 U. S. 565

be found in the record was a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money. There was no question raised on the pleadings, no bill of exceptions, no instructions or ruling of the court.

There was what purported to be a statement of facts, signed by the judge, found in the record. It was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued by the judge. It did not appear to have been filed by consent of parties.

U.S. Supreme Court

Generes v. Bonnemer, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 564 564 (1868)

Generes v. Bonnemer

74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 564

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT

COURT FOR LOUISIANA

Syllabus

A judgment affirmed in a case where the only ruling of the court to be found in the record was a judgment rendered in favor of a plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money, where there was no question raised in the pleadings no bill of exceptions and no instructions or ruling of the court, and where what purported to be a statement of facts, signed by the judge, was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued.

In this case, which came on error to the circuit court for Louisiana, it appeared that the only ruling of the court to

Page 74 U. S. 565

be found in the record was a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money. There was no question raised on the pleadings, no bill of exceptions, no instructions or ruling of the court.

There was what purported to be a statement of facts, signed by the judge, found in the record. It was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued by the judge. It did not appear to have been filed by consent of parties.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

To permit the judge to make a statement of facts, on which the case shall be heard here, after the case is removed to this Court by the service of the writ of error, or even after it is issued, would place the rights of parties who have judgments of record entirely in the power of the judge, without hearing and without remedy. The statement of facts, filed without consent of the parties, must be treated as a nullity, and, as there is nothing on which error of the court below can be predicated, the judgment must be

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.