Carr v. Fife
Citations
- 156 U.S. 494
- 15 S. Ct. 427
- 39 L. Ed. 508
- 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2155
Syllabus
<p>It is too late to urge in this court stipulations between parties not brought to the attention of the court below.</p> <p>The value of the matter in dispute, if not stated in the record, may, for the purpose of jurisdiction, be shown by affidavits.</p> <p>The fact that a Circuit Judge,-prior to his appointment, had been counsel for one of the parties in matters not connected with the case on trial, does not disqualify him from trying the cause.</p> <p>An objection that the receiver took part with the register on the hearing and de 'ision of a case in the land office cannot be taken for the first time in this court.</p> <p>Taking all the facts together, it is quite clear that the receiver and the register affirmatively found the fact of abandonment.</p> <p>The decision of the land office upon the questions involved in this case was conclusive, unless the charges of fraud and conspiracy were sustained, and it is evident that the court below carefully considered the evidence on these points.</p> <p>When a plaintiff seeks to invalidate a patent of land by averring misconduct on the part of officials in a contest case, a complete record of the proceedings is relevant and important.</p> <p>In the absence of fraud .and imposition the findings and decisions of the land office cannot be reviewed as to the facts involved.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that it “has always been held” that the amount in controversy may be “show[n] by ex parte affidavits”
- stating that it “has always been held” that the amount in controversy may be “show[n] by ex parte affidavits”
- stating that it “has always been held” that the amount in controversy may be “show[n] by ex parte affidavits”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Shiras, After Stating the Case
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Andrew Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.Eleventh Circuit· 2010-06-08· cited 701×
- Williams v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 2016-06-09· cited 380×
- Hathorne v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1970-10-21· cited 89×
- National Auto Brokers Corp. v. General Motors Corp.Second Circuit· 1978-03-20· cited 53×
- Jay E. Darlington v. Studebaker-Packard CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1959-01-02· cited 42×
- Beauregard v. DaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1936-04-17· cited 25×
- McEldowney v. CardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee· 1911-09-21· cited 25×
- Tuttle v. TuttleNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1921-01-29· cited 15×
- Doggett v. HuntS.D. Alabama· 1950-10-03· cited 11×
- Bureau of National Literature v. SellsW.D. Washington· 1914-03-03· cited 11×
- Estes v. TimmonsSupreme Court· 1905-11-27· cited 10×
- O'Connor v. GertgensSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1902-04-04· cited 9×
- United States v. BucherEighth Circuit· 1926-11-17· cited 7×
- People's Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. East Tennessee Telephone Co.Sixth Circuit· 1900-07-13· cited 7×
- Robinson v. Suburban Brick Co.Fourth Circuit· 1904-02-02· cited 7×
- Pessin v. Keeneland Ass'nE.D. Kentucky· 1967-09-29· cited 7×
- De La Torre v. National City BankFirst Circuit· 1939-12-15· cited 6×
- Fowles v. Commercial Casualty Ins.E.D. Washington· 1945-04-02· cited 4×
- Oswald v. COLUMBIA LUMBER COMPANY OF ALASKAAlaska Supreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 3×
- Notley v. BrownHawaii Supreme Court· 1906-03-15· cited 3×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.