BRANDIES
v.
COCHRANE
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.
A decree was entered on August 2, 1879, with an appeal allowed the same day, but no bond was ever filed and the case was not docketed within the required timeframe. The Supreme Court held that the circuit judge's approval of a bond and signing of a citation on August 1, 1881, constituted a valid taking of the appeal within two years of the decree, and that no formal order of allowance was necessary to effectuate the appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.-
This is a motion to dismiss because the appeal was not taken within two years after the entry of the decree.
It appears from the record that the decree was entered on the 2d'of August,, 1879, and on thensarne day the complainants prayed an appeal, which was allowed upon their giving bond •according to law. No bond “was ever given, under this allowance,- and the case was "not docketed here at the October Term, 1879' On the first -of August, 1881, the circuit judge approved a bond for an appeal from the decree and signed a citation. The bond was on the same day filed’ with the clerk, and the citation served .on the 18th of August. .On the 8th of October the Circuit Court entered an order allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc as of August 1. The case was regularly •docketed in this court on the 13th of October. The circuit judge, by taking the security and signing the citation, allowed an appeal. No formal order of allowance was necessary. Sage v. Railroad Company, 96 U. S. 712; Draper v. Davis, 102 id. 370. The appeal was, therefore; -taken in time. The order of October. 8th was not required to give it effect.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Credit Co. Ltd. v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1888)…ed in law in cases of error.” This provision applies to the time within which appeals may be brought, as [*261] well as to other regulations concerning them. The Bam, Pedro, 2 Wheat. 132; Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81; Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262. An appeal cannot be said to be “ taken ” any more than a writ of error can be said to he “ brought ” until it is, in some way, presented to the court which made the decree appealed from, thereby putting an end to its jurisdiction over the cause, an…
-
Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1898)…e cause, and making it its duty to send it to the appellate court. This is done by filing the papers, viz., the petition and allowance of appeal (where there is such petition and allowance), the appeal bond and the citation. In Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262, it was held that in the absence of a petition and allowance, the filing of the appeal bond, duly approved by a justice of this court, was sufficient evidence of the allowance of an appeal, and was a compliance with the law requiring the appeal to b…
-
Ex parte in the Matter of Leaf Tobacco Bd. of Trade of the City of N.Y., 222 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1911)…orize them in this proceeding to assail the action of the court below. This is more obvious in this case since the act of the court which is assailed has been accepted by those who are parties to the record. United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 105 U. S. 262; Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500.…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sage v. R.R. Co., 96 U.S. 712 (U.S. 1877)