Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

North Vs. Mcdonald

North vs Mcdonald

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1879
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83859

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
154 U.S. 649
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

North

Respondent

Mcdonald

Excerpt

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 mc donald 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.

Full Judgment

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 Mc DONALD 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial