William Matthews Merrick

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) district Deceased · served 1886–1889 Appointed by Grover Cleveland (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

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

How Judge Merrick decides

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

What persuades

He prioritized the public's right to unobstructed highways over private property interests along the route.

“Individual interest is secondary always to the public right and the public good.”

He required proof that a partnership authorized an endorsement before binding the firm to that use.

“the firm was not to be bound unless knowledge was brought home that the firm had authorized the endorsement for that purpose.”

Cautions

He recognized equitable intervention to restrain collection of an illegal tax when the pleaded circumstances met the traditional conditions for chancery relief.

“presents a proper case for the intervention of chancery in regard to the levying of an illegal tax”

He denied injunctive relief where the developed facts supplied no foundation for the claimed nuisance theory.

“there is no foundation whatsoever for the application which has been made for injunctive relief”

Signed rulings

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

McCormick v. District of Columbia
· 1885-02-15
Appeal (complainant-appellant) Granted

“the court reverses the decree below, overrules the demurrer, and remand the case for further proceedings”

Barnard v. Life Insurance
· 1885-05-11
Cross bill (receiver) Denied

“it will be dismissed with costs.”

McGill v. District of Columbia
· 1885-05-25
Appeal (District of Columbia) Denied

“the judgment of the court below, being without error, must he affirmed.”

Second National Bank of Washington v. Hume
· 1885-05-25
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Granted

“The judgment of the court below will therefore be reversed and the case will be remanded for a' new trial”

Jackson v. Davis
· 1885-06-15
Equitable subrogation (complainant) Granted

“the party complainant is entitled to the right which he claims at the hands of a court of equity to be substituted”

Smith v. Smith
· 1885-10-12
Appeal (complainant-appellant) Granted

“The decree below will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.”

District of Columbia v. Oyster
· 1885-10-26
Criminal information (District of Columbia) Denied

“he must go acquit of this information.”

Dunn v. Murt
· 1885-10-26
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“they will affirm the decree helow and remand the case”

Shoemaker v. Chappell
· 1886-02-23
Appeal (defendants-appellants) Denied

“The decree below granting the correction will be affirmed”

Hewett v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
· 1886-03-08
Injunction (complainants) Denied

“the bill of the complainants ought to be dismissed with costs.”

United States v. Lee
· 1886-03-15
Criminal appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“it will be affirmed.”

Marks v. Main
· 1886-04-12
Appeal (complainants-appellants) Denied

“the decree of the court below, after, as I have said, three successive adjudications in the different stages of the case, should be affirmed and the bill dismissed.”

A historical record

Judge Merrick 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.