Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 1/26/1885

Dakota County v. Glidden

Citations

  • 113 U.S. 222
  • 5 S. Ct. 428
  • 28 L. Ed. 981
  • 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1673

Syllabus

<p>While payment of the sum recovered below in submission to the judgment is no bar to the right of reversal of the judgment when brought here by writ of error, a compromise and settlement of the demand in suit, whereby a new agreement is substituted in place of the old one, extinguishes the cause of action, and leaves nothing for the exercise of the jurisdiction of this court.</p> <p>Evidence of facts outside of the record, affecting the proceeding of the court in a ease on error or appeal, will be received and considered, when deemed necessary'by the court, for the purpose of determining its action.</p>

About this case

Dakota County v. Glidden

Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U.S. 222 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a civil settlement extinguishes a controversy and deprives courts of jurisdiction to make further decisions.

Contents

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_County_v._Glidden&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

The case arose upon a motion to dismiss a suit issued in aid of a railroad. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brought a writ of error to reverse it. Subsequently, to the judgment, Dakota County, Nebraska settled with the plaintiff and other bondholders, by giving them new bonds bearing a less rate of interest, and the old bonds, which were the cause of action in this suit, were surrendered and destroyed.[1]

Supreme Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_County_v._Glidden&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Supreme Court")

The case came to the Supreme Court on a writ of error, and a party entered a motion to dismiss that writ of error. The Supreme Court heard of the settlement via affidavits and transcripts from the county records that accompanied that motion to dismiss the writ of error.

The Supreme Court decided that, while payment of the sum recovered in submission to the judgment is no bar to the right of reversal of the judgment when brought here by writ of error, a compromise and settlement of the demand in suit, whereby a new agreement is substituted in place of the old one, extinguishes the cause of action, and leaves nothing for the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court.

Indeed, the county tried to have the appellate courts ignore the settlement and decide the underlying questions because recognizing the settlement would require the appellate court to "to assume original instead of appellate jurisdiction." Contrary to the truism that appellate courts do not engage in new fact finding, the Supreme Court rejected the County's theory, saying "[T]his court is compelled, as all courts are, to receive evidence [from outside] the record affecting their proceeding in a case before them" when the court deems such fact-finding necessary. Accordingly, the court found that the settlement had been reached and dismissed the case as moot.[2]

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_County_v._Glidden&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U.S. 222 (1885).
  2. ↑ John C. Godbold, Fact Finding by Appellate Courts - An Available and Appropriate Power, 12 Cumb. L. Rev. 365 (1981-1982).

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_County_v._Glidden&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_County_v._Glidden&oldid=1360978437 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that a judgment debtor can recover money paid under a judgment that has subsequently been reversed
  • stating that a judgment debtor can recover money paid under a judgment that has subsequently been reversed
  • stating that a judgment debtor can recover money paid under a judgment that has subsequently been reversed
  • stating that a judgment debtor can recover money paid under a judgment that has subsequently been reversed
  • holding it is appropriate for an appeals court to take judicial notice of a settlement agreement that moots the appeal where the parties do not dispute the validity of the settlement
  • “There can be no question that a debtor against whom a judgment for money is recovered, may pay that judgment, and bring a writ of error to reverse it, and if reversed can recover back his money . . . by means of a writ of restitution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Miller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.