William Rufus Day

How Judge Day rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1899–1903
Appointed by
William McKinley (Republican)
Commissioned
February 28, 1899
Education
University of Michigan; University of Michigan, B.S., 1870; Read law, 1871
Signed orders read
21

About Judge Day

William Rufus Day was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President William McKinley, Judge Day received a commission on February 28, 1899. Judge Day previously served on the United States Circuit Courts for the Sixth Circuit, commissioned there on February 28, 1899. Judge Day left the court on February 23, 1903 on appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

How Judge Day decides

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

What persuades

In Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Freeman, Day reversed because the receivers had not been properly served; their later pleading to the merits did not waive a timely jurisdictional objection.

“As there was no proper service upon the-receivers the motion to quash should have been sustained, and there was error in failing so to do.”

Applies the bankruptcy statute to release property from a lien obtained during the four-month preference period.

“as the property was acquired by the bankrupt within four months prior to the filing of the petition, we think the lien was vacated, and the property passed to the trustee freed therefrom.”

Procedural preferences

In Stoll v. Loving, he ordered a new trial because conflicting testimony on a vital contract issue should have gone to the jury.

“it should have been left to .the jury to determine-, under-proper instructions.”

Defers to a master's fact findings absent plain mistake or conclusions unsupported by the record.

“the' master’s conclusions of fact, affirmed by the circuit court, are binding upon us in the absence of plain mistake or unsupported conclusions.”

Cautions

Warns that a trial judge's unsupported comments can overwhelm the jury's independent role.

“his lightest word or intimation is received with deference, and may prove controlling.”

Requires proof before receivership rents may be diverted beyond the purpose for which the receiver was appointed.

“no proof, so far as we have been able to discover, was offered in support of these allegations”

Signed rulings

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

Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Carey
· 1902-04-08
Appeal (mortgage association appellant) Denied

“Judgment affirmed.”

Baltimore & O. R. v. Freeman
· 1901-12-03
Appeal (railroad receivers appellant) Granted

“The judgment will be reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court, with instructions to sustain the motion to quash the service upon the receivers.”

Wagner v. United States
· 1900-10-02
Appeal (bankrupt appellant) Denied

“The order of the court will be affirmed.”

McKnight v. United States
· 1901-11-11
Appeal (criminal defendant plaintiff in error) Granted

“the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial awarded.”

In re Darwin
· 1902-07-08
Appeal (bankruptcy trustee petitioner) Granted

“The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.”

In re Lemmon & Gale Co.
· 1901-12-03
Appeal (bankruptcy claimant appellant) Granted

“The order complained of will be reversed, and the cause remanded for-further proceedings.”

Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Buckner
· 1901-07-02
Appeal (insurer plaintiff in error) Denied

“the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs”

Sansom v. Southern Ry. Co.
· 1901-11-11
Appeal (injured passenger appellant) Denied

“The judgment will be affirmed.”

Kellogg v. United States
· 1900-07-13
Appeal (criminal defendant plaintiff in error) Denied

“the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.”

Star Brass Works v. General Electric Co.
· 1901-07-02
Appeal (patent defendant appellant) Denied

“the same will be affirmed.”

Stoll v. Loving
· 1902-01-13
Appeal (contract defendant plaintiff in error) Granted

“the judgment will be reversed, arid a new trial granted.”

Tutt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
· 1900-11-07
Appeal (injured plaintiff appellant) Granted

“The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent: with this opinion.”

A historical record

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