Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NORTH v. McDONALD, 1879 — 154 U.S. 649 · caselaw · US
General
NORTH v. McDONALD
154 U.S. 64925 L. Ed. 535·Supreme Court of the United States·1879
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NORTH v. McDONALD
error to the supreme court of the territory OF WYOMING.
No. 41.
Submitted November 4, 1879.
Decided November 10, 1879.
On the case made by the pleadings the court will not disturb the judgment below.
Mr. C. W. Bramel and Mr. W. IF. Corlett for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Edward P. Johnson for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiffs below evidently intended to bring this action under sec. 5129 of the Revised Statutes, but the averments in their petition are only sufficient to make a case under sec. 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.