Hecht v. Boughton
Wyoming Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Laramie County. The facts are stated in the opinion delivered in the district court, by Peck, «J. After the plaintiffs counsel had announced their case as closed, the court suggested an absence of certain proof, and allowed them to proceed with further testimony in their opening, under the objection of defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Laramie County. The facts are stated in the opinion delivered in the district court, by Peck, «J. After the plaintiffs counsel had announced their case as closed, the court suggested an absence of certain proof, and allowed them to proceed with further testimony in their opening, under the objection of defendant. This may be a right within the discretion of the court, and it may be argued that no matter within the discretion of the court will be reviewed by an appellate court. While such was probably the old doctrine, it is surely exploded now, and appellate…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
This is an action of ejectment for lots one (1) and two (2) in block three hundred and fifty-three (353), located in the city of Cheyenne, and mesne profits, brought in the first district court by Mary E. Boughton, the plaintiff below, against Charles Hecht, the defendant below. The defense was made by the plea of the general issue; the case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff below for the possession and for mesne profits. After argument and careful consideration, we concur in the rulings below upon the admission and exclusion of testimony; and for…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Ohio Oil Co. v. Wyoming AgencyWyoming Supreme Court · 1947
- McCarthy v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1942
- Allen v. HounWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- Olds v. Little Horse Creek Cattle Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1914
- Birney v. WarrenMontana Supreme Court · 1903
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.