Skip to content


Aurrecoecha Vs. Bangs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number110 U.S. 217
AppellantAurrecoecha
RespondentBangs
Excerpt:
.....to serve and file his printed argument, and the counsel for the plaintiff in error ten days to reply. no argument has been filed in behalf of plaintiff in error, but one was filed in behalf of the defendant in error on the 15th of december. on the last day for submitting cases under the rule, which was after the expiration of the time the plaintiff in error was entitled to for his reply, the defendant in error submitted the case under the stipulation. in muller v. dows, 94 u. s. 277 , it was decided that stipulations of this kind between counsel might be enforced, and that they could not be withdrawn by either party without the consent of the other except by leave of the court upon cause shown. we therefore take the case as submitted under the rule, although there is.....
Judgment:
Aurrecoecha v. Bangs - 110 U.S. 217 (1884)
U.S. Supreme Court Aurrecoecha v. Bangs, 110 U.S. 217 (1884)

Aurrecoecha v. Bangs

Submitted January 4, 1884

Decided January 21, 1884

110 U.S. 217

I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

When counsel stipulate to submit a case, fixing a time for filing of argument by the plaintiff, and a time subsequently for filing the defendant's argument, and a time still later for plaintiff's reply, and the plaintiff failing to file an argument, the defendant files one within the time allowed to him and the plaintiff files no reply, the Court will take the case as submitted under the rule.

Stipulations between counsel for submitting suits, when filed, cannot be withdrawn without consent of both parties. Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 277 , approved and followed.

Page 110 U. S. 218

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The counsel on both sides stipulated in writing to submit this case under Rule 20. The stipulation bears date November 15, 1883. It was filed here on the 12th of December. By its terms, the counsel for the plaintiff in error was to have until the 12th of December to serve and file his printed argument; the counsel for the defendant in error until the 25th of December to serve and file his printed argument, and the counsel for the plaintiff in error ten days to reply. No argument has been filed in behalf of plaintiff in error, but one was filed in behalf of the defendant in error on the 15th of December. On the last day for submitting cases under the rule, which was after the expiration of the time the plaintiff in error was entitled to for his reply, the defendant in error submitted the case under the stipulation.

In Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 277 , it was decided that stipulations of this kind between counsel might be enforced, and that they could not be withdrawn by either party without the consent of the other except by leave of the court upon cause shown. We therefore take the case as submitted under the rule, although there is no argument for the plaintiff in error, and without passing specially upon the several assignments of error, which were returned with the transcript in accordance with the requirements of § 997 of the Revised Statutes,

Affirm the judgment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //