George Hutchins Bingham

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit circuit Deceased · served 1913–1949 Appointed by Woodrow Wilson (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

Judge Bingham no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Bingham decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Looks to the practical benefit received when applying bankruptcy preference rules, rather than requiring the beneficiary to fit a narrower formal label.

“They were accommodation indorsers on the notes, and must have paid them, if Sternburg did not, and were the parties to be benefited by the payments, whether they were creditors or not.”

Treats actual notice and prompt cessation as decisive when an innocent copyright user faces damages and injunctive relief.

“This defendant, upon actual notice of the copyright, ceased infringing.”

Procedural preferences

Requires the appellate record to contain the challenged material before reviewing alleged trial error.

“Without the search warrant and the return thereon, it cannot be determined whether the warrant was properly issued and served”

Enforces statutory appellate deadlines even when a party asks the court to recast an improper appeal as a request for permission to appeal.

“an application to this court under that section must be made within thirty days from the entry of the order sought to be reviewed”

Cautions

Rejects a jury instruction that substitutes comparative negligence for the governing common-law rule.

“This instruction is manifestly erroneous. It is a statement of the doctrine of comparative negligence”

Will not disturb an administrative factual finding when the record contains sufficient supporting evidence.

“We have carefully examined it, and are of the opinion that it was sufficient to sustain the finding of the Board.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Martinez v. Martinez
· 1919-03-10
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decree of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico is affirmed^ with costs to the appellees.”

Vere v. Bianchi
· 1920-07-03
Appeal (plaintiff-in-error) Moot / procedural

“The judgment of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction; the defendants in error to recover their costs in this court.”

Porto Rico Railway Light & Power Co. v. Diaz Mor
· 1920-07-02
Appeal (plaintiff-in-error) Moot / procedural

“The judgment of the United States District Court for Porto Rico is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction; the plaintiff in error to recover its costs in this court.”

Matthews Bros. v. Pullen
· 1920-11-19
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The decree of the District Court as to the above claims of ’Maria B. Shepard and Gerald J. D’Arcy is vacated. In other respects it is affirmed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Murphy v. Gorton-Pew Vessels Co.
· 1919-11-21
Appeal (fishermen-appellants) Denied

“The, decree of the District Court is affirmed; the appellee to recover its costs in this court.”

Scott & Williams v. Hemphill Manufacturing Co.
· 1920-02-18
Appeal (patent-owner-appellant) Denied

“The decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellee.”

American Woolen Co. v. Stewart
· 1914-10-16
Appeal (employer-appellant) Granted

“The judgment of the District Court is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is- remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; and the plaintiff in error recover? its costs in this court.”

Goldman v. Cohen
· 1919-11-21
Appeal (indorsers-appellants) Denied

“The decree of the District Court is affirmed; the appellee to recover his costs in this court.”

Berkshire Hills Paper Co. v. Byron Weston Co.
· 1917-02-07
Appeal (patent-owner-appellant) Denied

“The decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the ap-pellee.”

Hatton v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.
· 1919-11-15
Appeal (estate-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and the defendant in error recovers its costs in this court.”

Damon ex rel. Kock Tang v. Johnson
· 1927-01-26
Appeal (admission-applicants) Denied

“The decree of the District Court is affirmed.”

Geoffroy v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
· 1927-01-26
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the defendant in error.”

A historical record

Judge Bingham no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.