Owyhee Land & Irrigation Co. v. Tautphaus
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. The defendant in error was the plaintiff in an action in the circuit court brought to recover a balance claimed to be due him upon a written contract.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. The defendant in error was the plaintiff in an action in the circuit court brought to recover a balance claimed to be due him upon a written contract. He alleged in his complaint that on June 5, 1893, he entered into a contract with the plaintiff in error, the Owyhee Land & Irrigation Company, a corporation, whereby he agreed to dig a certain canal, for which the said corporation promised to pay him $150,000, three-fourths of which was to be paid in cash, and the remainder in the company’s bonds. The complaint…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
The ruling of the circuit court in entering the default against the plaintiff in error was based upon section 724 of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows:
“In the trial of actions at law, the courts of the United States may, on motion and due notice thereof, require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the same by the ordinary rules of proceeding in chancery. If a *549plaintiff fails to comply with such order, the court may, on motion,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Hylton v. BrownU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1806
- Triplett v. Bank of WashingtonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1829
- Bell v. PomeroyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan · 1845
- Vaughan v. Central Pac. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. Midland Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922