Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 U.S. 564

Generes v. Bonnemer

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1868

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1868-12

■ In this case, which came on error to the Circuit Court for, Louisiana, it appeared that the only ruling of the court, to be found in the record, .was a judgment rendered in favor, of plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of mouey.

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““To permit the judge to make a statement of the 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.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ex parte Buskirk

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Ward” · Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Militia”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Opinion by Samuel Freeman Miller · Decided 1868-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Baker v. Carr (1962)

33 federal appellate · 8 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 15 states

20018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1A 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.

¶2■ In this case, which came on error to the Circuit Court for, Louisiana, it appeared that the only ruling of the court, to *565be found in the record, .was a judgment rendered in favor, of plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of mouey. There waa no question raised on the pleadings; no hill.of exceptions; no instructions or ruling of, the court.

¶3' 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 aftey the citation was issued by the judge. It did not appear to have been filed by. consent of parties.

¶4The case was submitted by Mr. Janin'for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Durani, contra, pointing out the peculiarity of the record.

¶5Mr. Justice MILLER

¶6delivered the opinion of the court.

¶7To 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

¶8Affirmed.

/74/us/564 · .json · Public domain