James Loren Martin

United States District Court for the District of Vermont district Retired 1915 · served 1906–1915 Appointed by Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) 24 signed orders read

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

How Judge Martin decides

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

What persuades

He treated subrogation as a flexible equitable doctrine aimed at placing the burden on the party ultimately responsible.

“The equity of subrogation is one calculated to do exact justice between persons who are obligated for the performance of the same duty.”

He read a statutory amendment in light of the provision Congress had previously removed, finding that the later text deliberately restored jurisdiction.

“This amendment brings into the law what the Senate struck out in the amendment of 1903 and clearly covers the case at bar.”

Procedural preferences

He preserved a stay while a good-faith certiorari petition remained pending, avoiding execution before higher-court review was resolved.

“Execution should not issue while the case is pending on certiorari to the Supreme Court.”

When credibility and performance evidence had been heard live by a referee, he preferred recommittal over substituting his own paper review.

“as the referee saw the witnesses and heard them testify, he can more readily adjust the matter than the court.”

Cautions

He would not invoke general equity to override an explicit statutory deadline for filing bankruptcy claims.

“this statute cuts out any common-law equity powers vested in the court for such allowance.”

In immigration habeas review, he distinguished review for denial of a fair hearing from a fresh judicial trial of the underlying admission facts.

“It is not the province of the district judge to try the facts upon which a Chinese immigrant claims the right to enter the United States.”

Signed rulings

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

In re Marcus
· 1908-03-18
Request to compel testimony without witness fees (creditors) Denied

“cannot be compelled to testify without the payment of his lawful fees.”

In re Holmes
· 1908-11-23
Bankruptcy discharge petition (bankrupt) Denied

“This petition is dismissed.”

In re Sanderson
· 1908-03-17
Late proof of claim (creditor) Denied

“The claim in question cannot be allowed, as it is barred by this statute.”

Moody v. Huntley
· 1906-12-06
Subrogation petition (surety) Granted

“Wherefore the prayer of the petitioner is granted.”

Parker v. Sherman
· 1912-03-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The motion to dismiss is overruled.”

Boston & M. R. v. Gokey
· 1907-01-30
Motion to stay execution (petitioner) Granted

“I hereby di-mei. that execution be stayed until further order of the court.”

United States v. Montpelier & W. R. R. R.
· 1910-01-26
Safety appliance penalty claim (United States) Denied

“Wherefore let there be judgment for the defendant.”

In re Shepardson
· 1915-01-04
Motion to dismiss bankruptcy case (creditor) Granted

“Let the cause be dismissed.”

Kehoe v. Bradford & Lasher
· 1910-01-28
Demurrer (defendants) Granted

“The demurrer is sustained, with leave for the complainant to amend within 30 days.”

Hill v. Horskins
· 1907-01-22
Petition for insurance policy (petitioner) Denied

“Wherefore the prayer of this petition , is denied.”

In re Clough
· 1912-06-10
Bankruptcy appeal (mortgagee) Denied

“The decision of the referee is affirmed.”

In re Kingsley
· 1908-03-30
Motion to vacate bankruptcy adjudication (guardian) Denied

“The petition that the bankruptcy proceedings in this district be vacated is dismissed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No case-level docket record was returned for this 1906-1915 tenure. The profile therefore makes no claim about caseload mix, case duration, administrative dispositions, or motion timing.

A historical record

Judge Martin 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.