Knowles v. Calderwood
CHARLES W. KNOWLES v. DAVID CALDERWOOD
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Joseph G. Baldwin (author), Cope
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Baldwin
BALDWIN, J.
— The statement for a new trial in this cause, if it could be regarded at all, is so imperfect that it is impossible for us to know whether the ruling of the court below was right or not; and all presumptions are in favor of its correctness.
Indeed, it is impossible from the account the record gives us of the case to ascertain what the merits of it are.
We must therefore affirm the judgment.
I concur: Cope, J.
Rehearing — Baldwin
*81OPINION ON REHEARING.
December 28, 1859.
BALDWIN, J.
— We have looked again into tbe record. The statement is so imperfect that we can arrive at no intelligent opinion as to the real facts. For example, at page 12 of the transcript the paper says: “Add Col. James’ testimony”; nothing is added. What Col. James’ testimony was we do not know. It may have had a controlling influence on the judgment of the court. Other defects might be added, but this is enough.
The rehearing is refused.
I concur: Cope, J.