Page images
PDF
EPUB

PAGE
505
512
193

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

...:

[ocr errors]

.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Kaine in re . .

Kanouse v. Martin . . . . . . . .
Kennett et al. v. Chambers ..
Kosciusko Case, reported under the title of Ennis et al. v. Smith et al. .

Lawler et al. v. Walker et al. ,

Le Roy et al. v. Tatham et al.,

Longworth v. Raymond . . . . . .

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Rae et al. v. Steinback et al. . .
Raymond v. Longworth..
Rillieux, Heirs of, v. United States. .
Robbins et al. v. Walker et al.,
Rundlé et al. v. Delaware and Raritan Canal Company

Salmon Falls Manufacturing Company v. Goddard .

Sample et al. y. Barnes ..

Sampson v. Wiswalli . .

Scoti v. Christy ...

Sheppard ct al. v. Graves . . . .

Same . Same . . . . .

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

OMISSION At page 11 in this volume, before the words, “ It appears in this case, that a sait was brought," &c., the following words are omitted, viz. :

“Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court.”

ERRATUM. In 13th Howard, page 381, in the syllabus of the case of Ilowaril ct al. v. Inger soll, it is said, - The boundary line runs along the top of this high western bank, leaving the bed

of the river and the Western shelving shore within the jurisdiction of Georgia.”

This is an error. It should read, "The boundary line runs up the river, on and along its western bank, and the jurisdic

tion of Georgia in the soil extends over to the line which is washed by the water, wherever it covers the bed of the river within its banks."

[blocks in formation]

ANDREW Wylie, JR., ADMINISTRATOR of SAMUEL Baldwin,

APPELLANT, V. RICHARD S. Coxe.

An appeal will not lie to this court from a refusal of the court below to open a prior

decree, and grant a rehearing. The decision of this point rests entirely in the

sound discretion of the court below. The case of Brockctt v. Brockett, (2 How. 240,) explained. Two appeals having been taken, one from the original decrce, and the other from the

refusal to open it, the latter must be dismissed, and the case stand for hearing upon

the first appcal. A motion for a mandate upon the court below, to carry the decrce into exccution,

overruled.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Columbia.

It was brought before the court upon the following motion:

The appellee in this case moves the court to dismiss the second appeal in this record from the order of the Circuit Court, overruling a motion to open the decree and grant a rehearing. And, also, to award a writ of procedendo, commanding the said Circuit Court to proceed and execute the first decree.

RICHARD S. Coxe, Dec. 22d, 1852.

In pro. per. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion oi the court

This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court, for the District of Columbia. The bill was filed by the appellee, to recover a sum of money

VOL. XIV.

[ocr errors]

which he alleged was due to him for services rendered to the appellant, as administrator, and to Baldwin, the intestate, in his lifetime, in recovering a large sum of money, which was due to the said Baldwin from the Mexican government. The case proceeded to final hearing; and, on the 28th of April, 1852, the court passed its decree, directing the appellant, as administrator, to pay to the appellee $3,750, with interest from the 16th of May, 1851, until paid.

From this decree the appellant prayed an appeal to this courts and executed an appeal-bond in the usual form, in the penalty of $200.. The bond is dated on the 6th of May, 1852, and on the same day was left for approval in the clerk's office, and, as appears by an indorsement upon it, was approved and filed on the 13th of the same month.

On the 13th of May, 1852, the appellant filed a petition for a rehearing, and on the same day moved to open the decree. The appellee answered the petition on the 19th. And, on the 22d, the motion to open the decree and for a rehearing, was overruled by the court. And, thereupon, the appellant prayed an appeal, as well from this order as from the decree of April 28th; and on the same day executed an appeal-bond in the penalty of $7,500, which was approved by the court.

The case is therefore here upon two appeals : 1st, from the firial decree, directing the payment of the money; and, 2d, from the order overruling the motion to open this decree and grant a rehearing.

In relation to the order, it is plain that no appeal will lie from the refusal of a motion to open the decree and grant a rehearing. The decision of such a motion rests in the sound discre. tion of the court below, and no appeal will lie from it.

The case of Brockett v, Brockett,-(2 How. 240,) which was relied on in the argument, was decided on different ground. In that case, before any appeal was taken, a petition was filed to open the decree for certain purposes, and the court referred it to a commissioner to examine and report on the matters stated in the petition. Upon his report, the court refused to open the decree, and the party thereupon appealed from this refusal, as well as the original detree, and gave bond, with sufficient security, to prosecute the appeal. This bond was given within ten days of the refusal of the motion, but was more than a month after the original decree. And the court held that this appeal was well taken; not because an appeal will lie from the refusal of a motion to open the decree and grant a rehearing, but because the court regarded the original decree as suspended by the action of the court on the motion, and that it was not effectual and final until the motion was overruled.

Ex parte Taylor.

But in this case the decree was not suspended. It was final from its date. An appeal had been regularly taken from it, and an appeal-bond given. And the case has come up to this court upon that appeal. There is no ground, therefore, for saying, that the first decree was not final until the motion was overruled. It is now before this court upon the first appeal; and the second appeal, although it professes to be an appeal from the original decree, as well as from the subsequent order, could not act on the original decree, which was already removed; and the validity of this last appeal must rest altogether on the refusal to open and rehear. And, as an appeal will not lie from the decision of such a motion, the appeal, so far as concerns the order on the petition for a rehearing, and the refusal of the Circuit Court to grant the same, must be dismissed.

The first appeal was, however, regularly taken, and the case will stand for hearing when it is reached in the regular call of the docket. And, as it is now presented by the record, we see no ground for a mandate to the Circuit Court. No application has been made to it to carry the decree into execution ; or to stay proceedings in it pending this appeal. We are bound to presume that the court below will do whatever may be right in the premises, if the subject is properly brought before it. And we cannot, in advance, undertake to guide their judg. ment by a mandate.

The motion for an order on the Circuit Court, to proceed to carry the decree into execution, is therefore overruled.

EX PARTE DAVID TAYLOR.

A rule will be refused for the judges of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, unless a case is presented

which prima facie requires the interposition of this court. Such a caso is not presented where the Circuit Court decided that, under an act of

Congress, an affidavit was sufficient to hold a party to special bail. That court had the power, by the act, to exercise its judicial discretion. This act of Congress regulated the subject, and not the statutc of Maryland, passed in 1715.

This case came before the court upon the following motion and petition:

( Petition for a Mandamus to the Judges of the Ex parte David Taylor.

Circuit Court of the District of Columbia,

for Washington County. The above petitioner moves the honorable the Judges of the

« EelmineJätka »