Avendano Vs. Gay

Avendano vs Gay

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1869

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/81711

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/81711
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1869
Case Number: 75 U.S. 376
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Avendano

Respondent

Gay

Excerpt

.....case, is a nullity. generes v. bonnemer, 7 wall. 564, affirmed. avendano brought suit in the court below against gay; and, in the course of the trial, offered certain evidence, which was objected to by the defendant, but which was admitted, notwithstanding, by the court. the defendant excepted, and a bill of exceptions was sealed. a verdict was given against the plaintiffs, who brought the case here on error. the writ of error was allowed on the 9th of july, 1867. the citation was issued on the 10th, and served on the 11th. on the 16th of july, a "statement of facts," by the judge who heard the case, was filed, and the cause in this state was here. page 75 u. s. 377 mr. justice miller delivered the opinion of the court. in order to show error in the proceedings in the circuit court, the counsel of the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, has referred to a bill of exceptions taken by the defendant to the ruling of the court admitting evidence, offered by plaintiff against defendant's objection. if there was error in the ruling, it was at plaintiff's request, and to the prejudice of defendant, and can form no ground of reversing the judgment, which, notwithstanding this testimony, was for the defendant. counsel also attempts to impugn the judgment, as not being supported by the facts of the case, and relies on what purports to be a statement of the facts found by the court. but the statement is filed in the court several days after the issue and service of the writ of error in this case, and is, therefore, a nullity, as we decided in the case of generes v. bonnemer. judgment affirmed.

Full Judgment

Avendano v. Gay - 75 U.S. 376 (1869)
U.S. Supreme Court Avendano v. Gay, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 376 376 (1869)

Avendano v. Gay

75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 376

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF LOUISIANA

SYLLABUS

1. A party in this Court cannot allege as error in the court below, the admission of evidence offered by himself and objected to by the other side.

2. A statement of facts, made and filed by the judge several days after the issue and service of the writ of error in the case, is a nullity. Generes v. Bonnemer, 7 Wall. 564, affirmed.

Avendano brought suit in the court below against Gay; and, in the course of the trial, offered certain evidence, which was objected to by the defendant, but which was admitted, notwithstanding, by the court. The defendant excepted, and a bill of exceptions was sealed. A verdict was given against the plaintiffs, who brought the case here on error. The writ of error was allowed on the 9th of July, 1867. The citation was issued on the 10th, and served on the 11th. On the 16th of July, a "statement of facts," by the judge who heard the case, was filed, and the cause in this state was here.

Page 75 U. S. 377

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

In order to show error in the proceedings in the circuit court, the counsel of the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, has referred to a bill of exceptions taken by the defendant to the ruling of the court admitting evidence, offered by plaintiff against defendant's objection. If there was error in the ruling, it was at plaintiff's request, and to the prejudice of defendant, and can form no ground of reversing the judgment, which, notwithstanding this testimony, was for the defendant.

Counsel also attempts to impugn the judgment, as not being supported by the facts of the case, and relies on what purports to be a statement of the facts found by the court. But the statement is filed in the court several days after the issue and service of the writ of error in this case, and is, therefore, a nullity, as we decided in the case of Generes v. Bonnemer.

Judgment affirmed.

Same Parties Avendano vs Gay Same Subject Education