Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Opinion of the Court.

Service was had on the attorneys for Crabtree on September 16, 1885. The time intervening between the date of service and the return of the citation was less than thirty days, and the notice to the defendant in error, Crabtree, was not sufficient. Rev. Stat. § 999.

Mr. O. D. Barrett opposing: The facts stated in the motion show that plaintiffs in error have fully complied with the fifth section of the eighth rule of this court, which simply provides that the citation be served before the return day of the writ. It was so served.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: This is a motion to dismiss, the ground for which is that the citation was served and made returnable less than thirty days after the writ was granted. We do not think that is a sufficient ground to dismiss the writ of error, whatever may be the ground for relief.

HUNT v. BLACKBURN.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

No. 199. Submitted April 2, 1888. - Decided April 9, 1888. - Motion to reinstate submitted April 26, 1888. — Ordered continued April 30, 1888.

A cause under submission having been dismissed by the court of its own motion for want of jurisdictional amount, the appellant moves to reinstate and submits affidavits. The court orders the motion continued, with leave to each party to file further affidavits.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. J. B. Haskell for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: After an examination of the record in this case, which was submitted on printed arguments, we

Syllabus.

have not been able to find any evidence of the value of the land in controversy, which is the subject of this suit. It is therefore

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Haskell, on the 26th April, 1888, submitted a motion to reinstate the cause, accompanied by affidavits of the value of the property in dispute.

No appearance for opposition.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: This case was dismissed by the court on April 9, 1888, because there was no evidence of there being a sufficient amount in controversy to give this court jurisdiction. A motion is now made to reinstate it, and affidavits submitted on the part of the appellant intended to show that the value of the land in controversy is over $5000. Although notice was given to the opposite party by telegraph, there has been no sufficient opportunity or time for them to produce counter affidavits, nor are we entirely satisfied with the sufficiency of those produced by the appellant. This motion to reinstate the case is, therefore, continued until the next term of the court, with leave for either party to file additional affidavits on this subject.

MARCHAND v. LIVANDAIS.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 1077. Submitted January 4, 1888. - Decided April 16, 1888.

A feme covert was sued in Louisiana to recover upon notes said to have been executed by her with the authority and consent of her husband. The husband was made a party to the suit under the Code, although without interest in the suit. Judgment being given for defendant, the plaintiff sued out a writ of error against the wife only, but serving it on the husband also. On motion by defendant in error to dismiss the writ: Held, that the motion should be denied.

MOTION TO DISMISS.

Statement of the Case.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edgar H. Farrar and Mr. Ernest B. Kruttschnitt for the motion.

Mr. C. W. Hornor and Mr. W. S. Benedict opposing.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: A motion is made to dismiss this cause because Charles Lafitte, the husband of the defendant in error, is not named in the writ of error as a party to the proceedings. The judgment was in favor of his wife Josephine, and he was a party authorizing her in the suit below, according to the forms of the Louisiana law, which require that the husband must be joined with the wife when she sues, whether he has any interest or not; and the plaintiff in error has served a citation on Lafitte, although he was not named in the writ of error. It may be doubtful whether Lafitte is a necessary party in this court, seeing he was not a party to the judgment. If for conformity's sake he ought to have been brought here to aid his wife in the writ of error, the citation to him is sufficient for that purpose. The motion to dismiss the case is overruled.

WESTERN AIR LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. MCGILLIS.

ORIGINAL MOTION IN A CAUSE BROUGHT HERE BY WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 1283. Submitted April 9, 1888. - Decided April 16, 1888.

The court, for reasons stated in its opinion, denies a motion to vacate a supersedeas or to make an order that the appeal bond filed in the case does not operate as a supersedeas.

THE defendants in error made the following motion:

"And now come the defendants in error in the above cause, by John S. Cooper, their attorney and counsel, and move the

Opinion of the Court.

court to vacate the supersedeas in the above cause, or for an order declaring that the appeal bond filed by appellant in said cause does not operate as a supersedeas; because the writ of error was not sued out or served within sixty days after the rendering of the judgment entered and complained of in said

cause.

"JOHN S. COOPER,

"Attorney and Counsel for Defendants in Error."

Mr. John S. Cooper for the motion.

Mr. E. Walker opposing.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: This is a motion to vacate what is called a supersedeas. The papers show that the writ was neither sued out or served within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment which is the subject of the writ of error: It follows as a matter of course that the writ cannot operate as a supersedeas, and we know of no motion that is necessary or proper in this court on that subject. Writs of supersedeas do not issue, unless it may become necessary from some peculiar circumstances. The statute declares that, when within sixty days, the plaintiff sues out his writ of error, files it with the clerk of the proper court, and then gives a bond within a certain time mentioned by the statute, that the bond, if approved for that purpose by the judge who grants the citation and the writ of error, shall operate as a supersedeas. It is a matter of law whether it operates as a supersedeas.

There is no evidence here of any proceeding to collect a debt which has been disregarded. At all events there is no occasion for a supersedeas.

The motion is denied.

« AnteriorContinuar »