RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
BLAIR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal was technically deficient because it was allowed in a subsequent term after the decree was rendered, requiring a citation to be issued to the appellees rather than relying on constructive notice, but the Court declined to dismiss the appeal absolutely and instead imposed a conditional order requiring the appellants to serve a citation by a specified date or face dismissal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The decree appealed from in this case was rendered Feb. 12, 1879, during the December Term, 1878, of the Circuit Court. The appeal was not allowed until April 14, 1879, which was during the March Term, 1879. The practice only dispenses with a citation when the appeal is taken and perfected in open court during the term at which the decree com plained of is actually entered; and, to be technically sufficient, so as to render a citation unnecessary, the taking of the appeal should in some form appear on the records of the court. The theory of the rule is, that as a party to a suit is constructively present in court during the entire term at which his cause is for hearing, and as the doings of the court are matter of record at the time, he is chargeable with notice of all that is done during the term affecting his suit; because, if actually absent when an order is made, he can on his return obtain full information by an examination of the minutes. Still, an appeal otherwise regular would not probably be dismissed absolutely for want of a citation, if it appeared by clear and unmistakable evidence, outside of the record, that the allowance was made in open court at the proper term, and that the appellee had actual notice of what had been done.
The records of the court in this case show an allowance of the appeal in court when the appellees were present by their solicitors. It was, however, at a term subsequent to the rendition of tbe decree, and under the practice a citation was necessary to bring the appellees to this court. The case was docketed promptly here at the term to which the appeal was returnable, and as the appellants might well have supposed that a citation would be waived, we will not dismiss the appeal absolutely, but apply the rule acted upon in Dayton v. Lash (94 U. S. 112), and “grant summary relief” “by imposing such terms upon the appellants as under the circumstances may be legal and proper,”
An order' may be entered that unless the appellants cause a citation, returnable on the first Monday of February next, to be issued and served upon the appellees before that date, the appeal be dismissed.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1889)
-
Hewitt v. Filbert & Another, 116 U.S. 142 (U.S. 1885)…me extent qualified, but the authority of those cases as to the necessity of an actual issue of the citation and service before the end of the return term was in no way impaired. On the contrary, it was fully recognized. So in Railroad Co. v. Blair, 100 U. S. 661, where an appeal was allowed in open court at a term subsequent to that in which the decree appealed from was rendered, but when the solicitors of the appellee were present and had actual notice of what was done, leave was granted to issue a citatio…
-
Taylor v. Leesnitzer, 220 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1911)…does not need the formalities of ancient law to indicate that it is taken against all adverse interests. All parties are present in fact or in law, and they have notice then and there. No citation is required.' Chicago & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Blair, 100 U. S. 661. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238. The requirement of a bond by a rule of the Court of Appeals does not go to the essence of the appeal, as is shown by the condition in the rule that the motion to dismiss for want of one must be “made within the fir…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dayton v. Lash, 94 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1876)