Capron v. Van Noorden

SCOTUS

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 2 L. Ed. 229, 6 U.S. 126, 2 Cranch 126, 1804 U.S. LEXIS 253

Decision Date: 3/18/1804

Bluebook Citation: Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 L. Ed. 229, 6 U.S. 126, 2 Cranch 126, 1804 U.S. LEXIS 253 (SCOTUS 1804)

More Cases: SCOTUS decisions from 1804


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 140 decisions
140
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

2
1
7
3
2
2
2
4
8
6
1
1
1
3
2
2
11
6
21
26
29
1820s1830s1840s1850s1860s1870s1880s1890s1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

U.S.14
W.D.N.C.14
S.D. Ohio13
6th Cir.9
D.C. Cir.7
7th Cir.6
Most recently cited by10
  • 2025Teagarden v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution S.D. Ohio
  • 2025Prysmian Cables & Sys. USA, LLC v. United States Ct. Intl. Trade
  • 2024Johnson, M.D. v. Johnson E.D. Mich.
  • 2024Wiltz v. OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital S.D. Ohio
  • 2024Bayer v. Community Insurance Company S.D. Ohio
  • 2023Rosalie Simon v. Republic of Hungary D.C. Cir.
  • 2022Nalls v. State of Ohio S.D. Ohio
  • 2022White v. Dave Dennis Inc. S.D. Ohio
  • 2021Brown v. Wright Patterson Air Force Base Sensors Directorte Afre/Ry S.D. Ohio
  • 2021Arroyo v. Lyles W.D.N.C.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

6 U.S. 126 (____)
2 Cranch 126

CAPRON
v.
VAN NOORDEN.

Supreme Court of United States.

*127 Harper, for the plaintiff in error.

It is true, as a general rule, that a man cannot reverse a judgment for error in process or delay, unless he can shew that the error was to his disadvantage; but it is also a rule, that he may reverse a judgment for an error of the Court, even though it be for his advantage. As if a verdict be found for the debt, damages, and costs; and the judgment be only for the debt and damages, the defendant may assign for error that the judgment was not also for costs, although the error is for his advantage.

Here it was the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of parties could not give it.

It is therefore an error of the Court, and the plaintiff has a right to take advantage of it. 2 Bac. Ab. Tit. Error. (K. 4.) — 8 Co. 59. (a) Beecher's case. — 1 Roll. Ab. 759. — Moor 692. — 1 Lev. 289. Bernard v. Bernard.

The defendant in error did not appear, but the citation having been duly served, the judgment was reversed.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.