Charles Pinckney James

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1879–1892 Appointed by Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge James decides

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

What persuades

He treated retention of conveyed property without providing the promised support as a breach of trust warranting restoration.

“his continued possession is a fraud.”

He protected the confidentiality of pending patent applications until applicants secured patent protection.

“an inventor’s right to secrecy, until he secures the protection of a patent”

Cautions

He refused an instruction whose correctness depended on legal argument that the jury could not obtain from its face.

“it must nevertheless be refused, just because it was not plain to the jury on .its face and needed such argumentation.”

He warned that an equity bill must match the theory actually supported by the evidence.

“the evidence is that Ashford had no contract whatever as to what the consideration was to be with Thompson.”

Signed rulings

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

Herring v. District of Columbia
· 1882-11-13
Appeal (District of Columbia) Granted

“The judgment is therefore reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, with leave to the plaintiff to amend.”

Johnston v. District of Columbia
· 1883-12-10
Appeal (complainant-appellant) Denied

“The bill was dismissed below, and we affirm the decree.”

Tolman v. Phelps
· 1884-03-03
Motion for new trial (defendant) Granted

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

Keller v. Ashford
· 1885-02-16
Appeal (complainant-appellant) Denied

“The decree below is affirmed.”

In re Bryant
· 1885-02-16
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The judgment below is therefore affirmed.”

Herring v. District of Columbia
· 1885-03-02
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“For these reasons we'affirm the judgment.”

Baker & Bro. v. Ramsburg's Sons
· 1885-03-23
Limitations defense (defendant) Denied

“Judgment is, therefore, for plaintiff.”

Scott v. Metropoitan Railroad
· 1885-06-08
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“we are obliged, with some regret, to reverse the judgment of the. court below.”

Diggins v. Doherty
· 1885-07-08
Rescission claim (complainant) Granted

“This conveyance is annulled.”

Eckloff v. District of Columbia
· 1886-04-19
Appeal (District of Columbia) Granted

“The judgment of the circuit court must therefore be reversed.”

Martin v. Campbell
· 1888-03-05
Mechanics lien claim (plaintiff) Denied

“The bill is, therefore, dismissed.”

Caton v. Caton
· 1888-03-12
Divorce petition (complainant) Granted

“The decree will be for a divorce a vinculo.”

A historical record

Judge James 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.