Walter Smith Cox

How Judge Cox rules, drawn from 54 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1879–1899
Appointed by
Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican)
Commissioned
1879-03-01
Education
Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), B.A., 1843; Georgetown College (now Georgetown University), M.A., 1844; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1847
Signed orders read
54

How Judge Cox decides

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

What persuades

He used remittitur to address a verdict he considered punitive and disproportionate to the proved injury.

“we regard this verdict as grossly excessive.”

He enforced an agreement transferring an invention and refused equitable aid to a party seeking to act contrary to it.

“a court of equity will not aid the inventor to obtain a patent for himself in direct violation of his agreement transferring the property in his invention.”

Cautions

He expected joint trustees to act together when exercising powers entrusted to them.

“the trustees must unite in the discharge of their duties.”

He protected creditors who relied on recorded ownership even where another person asserted an undisclosed beneficial interest.

“the creditor is entitled to pursue the ostensible title, even though it may not be the real title of the debtor.”

Signed rulings

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

O'Neal v. District of Columbia
· 1879-05-26
Motion for new trial (plaintiffs) Granted

“we are of opinion that there ought to be a new trial.”

Hines v. District of Columbia
· 1879-09-29
Demurrer (District of Columbia) Granted

“the demurrer below was properly sustained.”

Black v. Smith
· 1881-02-19
Bill to set aside sale (complainant) Granted

“I feel bound, therefore, to decree that the sale shall be set aside”

Johnston v. District of Columbia
· 1882-03-27
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“Judgment affirmed.”

In re Alteneck's Appeal
· 1882-11-27
Patent appeal (patent applicant) Granted

“we do not think the Commissioner was justified in finally rejecting Alteneck’s application for a patent, and cannot confirm his decision.”

Runstetler v. Atkinson
· 1883-02-03
Appeal (complainants-appellants) Denied

“we must affirm the decree below”

O'Day v. Vansant
· 1883-03-05
Motion for new trial (plaintiff) Granted

“a new trial is therefore granted.”

Bannagan v. District of Columbia
· 1883-03-12
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“The ruling of the court below, therefore, is affirmed.”

United States v. National Bank of the Republic
· 1883-03-13
Motion for new trial (United States) Granted

“A new trial is granted.”

Nelson v. Henry
· 1883-03-20
Appeal (creditor-appellant) Granted

“The decree is set aside and the bill dismissed.”

Magarity v. Shipman
· 1883-05-07
Bills in equity (complainants) Denied

“both bills, be dismissed without prejudice to the right of these parties to proceed at common law.”

Alley v. Quinter
· 1883-06-21
Specific performance (complainant) Granted

“he is entitled to a specific performance by the defendant of the contract to purchase.”

A historical record

Judge Cox 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.