Andrew Coyle Bradley

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1889–1902 Appointed by Benjamin Harrison (Republican) 10 signed orders read

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

How Judge Bradley decides

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

What persuades

He imposed a trust where a party with a limited shared interest used that position to obtain an exclusive advantage.

“he shall not retain the same for his own benefit, but hold it in trust.”

He found domicile from the consistency of a party's employment, interests, conduct, and declarations with permanent residence in the District.

“the legitimate conclusion from the whole evidence of his conduct and declarations is that this District was and is his domicile of choice.”

He treated an apparently simple device as inventive where many others working in the field had not previously conceived it.

“The apparent simplicity of a new device often leads an inexperienced person to think that it would have occurred to any one familiar with the subject”

Cautions

He conditioned insurance recovery on the policyholder providing the indemnity protection offered in the bill.

“upon his executing and delivering to the company his bond of indemnity”

Signed rulings

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

District of Columbia v. Rubert
· 1889-05-01
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“The motion for a new trial and the motion in arrest of judgment must be each overruled”

Motion in arrest of judgment (defendant) Denied
Bradstreet v. Bradstreet
· 1889-06-10
Plea to jurisdiction (defendant) Denied

“we overrule the plea to the jurisdiction and remand the case to the Special Term.”

Holohan v. Washington & Georgetown Railroad
· 1890-11-10
Motion for new trial (defendant) Granted

“The verdict is set aside, and a new trial granted.”

Marion v. Williams
· 1891-03-09
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“The verdict is set aside, and the cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court for a new trial.”

Bohrer v. Otterback
· 1892-05-28
Appeal (appellants) Granted in part

“The decree shall be modified in accordance with this opinion.”

Barbour v. Johnson
· 1892-05-31
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“The decree below is affirmed.”

Richards v. Waldron
· 1892-06-13
Appeal (complainants-appellants) Denied

“the decree of that court is affirmed with costs.”

Hoover v. Hathaway, Soule & Harrington
· 1892-06-20
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants) Denied

“the'writ of attachment and garnishment was properly quashed by the court in special term, and its order should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.”

Webster v. New England Mutual Life Insurance
· 1892-11-17
Appeal (complainant-appellant) Granted

“The decree of the special term is reversed”

In re Snyder
· 1897-01-05
Patent appeal (patent applicant) Granted

“The rejected claims should have been allowed, and therefore the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is reversed”

A historical record

Judge Bradley 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.