David Campbell Humphreys

How Judge Humphreys rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
Position
District judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1870–1879
Appointed by
Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)
Commissioned
May 13, 1870
Signed orders read
19

About Judge Humphreys

David Campbell Humphreys was a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Supreme Court of the District of Columbia). Appointed by President Ulysses Grant, Judge Humphreys received a commission on May 13, 1870. Judge Humphreys served until death on July 12, 1879.

How Judge Humphreys decides

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

What persuades

He required strong proof before permitting parol evidence to alter a written conveyance.

“Courts must be cautious in undertaking to permit the terms of written instruments to be varied by parol testimony.”

In Sanborn & King v. O’Donnoghue, he gave the written instruments weight that the parties’ later testimony did not overcome.

“the law attaches a force to the writings in this case which the evidence fails to overturn, but, on the contrary, sustains and corroborates.”

Cautions

He would not use equity to override express statutory limits on an institution's power.

“Equity cannot relieve against a positive injunction of the law.”

He approached mandamus against another department cautiously when the court lacked the complete administrative record.

“we cannot undertake to require other Departments to do that which in their judgment they ought not to do, unless we are in the full possession of all the facts and merits of any application.”

Signed rulings

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

Mayor of Washington City v. Meigs
· 1873-04-15
Motion to quash warrant (defendant) Granted

“The defendant is discharged and the warrant ciuashed.”

Haw v. Brown
· 1873-09-15
Dower claim (complainant) Granted

“we think they fully sustain the claim of complainant to a decree.”

Pollard v. Lyon
· 1874-01-15
Motion in arrest of judgment (defendant) Granted

“We think that we are forced, however reluctant to do so, by the mandate of authority, to'arrest the judgment.”

Kimbro v. First National Bank
· 1874-04-15
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“The conclusion to which we come is that the motion for a new trial on the exceptions is overruled, and the judgment-of the circuit court'is affirmed.”

Smith v. Woodruff
· 1874-04-15
Patent infringement bill (complainants) Denied

“The decree will be that this cause coming on to be heard, being argued by counsel, and on due consideration, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainant’s bill be dismissed.”

White v. Freedman's Bank
· 1874-04-15
Interpleader claim (mortgage creditors) Granted

“A decree will be drawn establishing the priority of the deeds of trust in favor of the Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company”

Talty v. Freedman's Trust Co.
· 1874-04-15
Appeal (appellant or petitioner) Denied

“the affirmance of that judgment is hereby ordered.”

Sanborn & King v. O'Donnoghue
· 1874-04-15
Specific performance (complainants) Granted

“On payment into court of the money, we think the complainants will be entitled to the decree asked for, and counsel will carefully draught the same.”

Hull v. Commissioner of Patents
· 1875-04-15
Mandamus (petitioner) Denied

“Mandamus refused.”

Creswell v. National Savings-Bank
· 1875-09-15
Appeal (appellant or petitioner) Denied

“We have concluded, by a majority of the court, that we are called upon, by rules too firmly established to be unsettled, to affirm the order and decree of restraint in this case.”

Abrams v. De Wandalaer
· 1875-09-15
Appeal (appellant or petitioner) Denied

“The main question assigned as error is the power and propriety, in practice, of the court to allow a dismissal or nolle proseguí as to one or more of the parties in a suit against several, when the evidence shows a liability against those only who are retained as defendants. A majority of the court is of opinion that, in order to save litigation and further the ends of justice, according to the established rules of law, this may be done during the progress of the trial as well as when the trial begins.”

Williams v. Gardiner
· 1875-09-15
Appeal (appellant or petitioner) Granted

“So much of the decree of the court in special term as declines to charge Wise with use and occupation of the front part of the premises in question is hereby reversed, and the auditor’s report is confirmed as to the principle involved. But as it may be necessary to restate the account, and arrive at correct amounts, the decree is reversed, with instructions to proceed on the principles here indicated.”

A historical record

Judge Humphreys 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.