Edward Franklin Bingham

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1888–1903 Appointed by Grover Cleveland (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

He treated a publication as libelous when its language tended to injure reputation and bring the subject into disgrace.

“it tends to injure the good name and fame of the party to whom the article is directed and to bring him into disgrace.”

He upheld a business-class licensing rule when it was reasonable rather than arbitrary.

“the only requirement being that it should be a reasonable rule, and not arbitrarily adopted.”

Cautions

He required a complainant seeking specific performance to tender a title free from reasonable doubt.

“the title of the defendant, were we to enter a decree for specific performance, would, under the circumstances, be doubtful”

He applied controlling local law even while acknowledging that the result rested on a technical rule.

“If it be admitted that our decision is based upon technical law, it nevertheless, appears to be the law of this jurisdiction”

Signed rulings

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

Brown v. McLean
· 1887-07-11
Appeal (garnishee-appellant) Granted

“Judgment of condemnation reversed. Judgment in favor of the garnishee for costs.”

United States v. Marshall
· 1887-07-11
Motion to arrest judgment (defendant) Denied

“Motion overruled and cause remanded for sentence.”

United States v. Morris
· 1887-07-18
Motion for decree (claimant) Denied

“The motion is overruled and cause remanded to the Special Term in Equity for further proceedings.”

Black v. Aman
· 1887-10-17
Specific performance (complainant) Denied

“we are, therefore, constrained to dismiss the bill, imth costs.”

Rich v. Solari
· 1887-12-19
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“The order of the Court below overruling the motions to quash and discharge the attachment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.”

Kent v. Pennsylvania Railroad
· 1888-03-19
Appeal (petitioner-appellant) Denied

“The ruling of the Orphans’ Court is, therefore, affirmed.”

Beha v. Ottenberg
· 1888-04-02
Appeal (lien claimant) Granted

“Case remanded accordingly.”

Rocker v. Perkins
· 1888-05-07
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“The judgment of the Court below is reversed, and a new trial ordered.”

United States ex rel. Manion v. Commissioners of the District
· 1888-05-14
Mandamus petition (relator) Denied

“the application for a writ of mandamus is refused.”

Kelley v. Divver
· 1888-05-28
Appeal (complainant-appellant) Denied

“The decree below dismissing the bill is, therefore, affirmed.”

Brown v. Wygant
· 1888-06-04
Demurrer (defendant) Denied

“The demurrer will be overruled”

Densmore v. Densmore
· 1888-10-08
Bill for divorce (complainant) Denied

“Bill dismissed.”

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.