MAYER AND ANOTHER
v.
WALSH
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.
In this dispute between Mayer and Walsh, the Supreme Court postponed its decision on a cross-appeal motion without a printed record, noting that the case involved competing defenses including a plea of prescription and other partial defenses to the underlying claim. The Court suggested that the cross-appeal might be properly taken if the original appellee's appeal on the merits could increase the judgment amount above the jurisdictional threshold of five thousand dollars, making the prescription defense more significant to the cross-appellant.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a cross-appeal and the record has not been printed. As the case is here on the original appeal by the present appellee, we are not inclined to grant this motion in the abseiice of the printed record. . It appears from the motion papers that the present appellant pleaded prescription, and we infer that this plea was not sustained. By his other defences he defeated the claim in part. To review the decree so far as it is affected by these defences, the present appellee appealed. If, on that appeal; these defences are overruled, it may be important to the present appellant to insist on his defence of prescription against a claim that will then amount to more than five thousand dollars. Had not the other side appealed, the present appellant could not, because the decree against him is less than five thousand dollars. Under the circumstances, it may be that this appeal was well taken. Without, however, deciding that question, we postpone the further consideration of the motion until the hearing on the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1922)…rit was duly filed; and that enabled the court to review the portion of the order, civil in its nature, which Wilson alleged to be erroneous;.for the judgment in the contempt proceeding was a unit. The case resembles in somé respects Mayer v. Walsh, 108 U. S. 17; Walsh v. Mayer, 111 U. S. 31, 37, 38. Compare Field v. Barber Asphalt Co., 194 U. S. 618, 620, 621. The facts relating to the sale of spare parts were agreed; and the question before the court was merely as to their legal effect. That question cou…
-
Weinstein v. Black Diamond S. S. Corp., 31 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1929)…. Anderson (C. C. A.) 236 F. 345, all from the Eighth Circuit, are inapplicable. The failure to return with a writ of error an assignment of errors is not jurisdictional, so as to compel dismissal. Independent School District v. Hall, 106 U. S. 428, 1 S. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 237; United States v. Pena, 175 U. S. 500, 502, 20 S. Ct. 165, 44 L. Ed. 251. The motion to dismiss is denied.…
-
United States v. Estate, 91 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1937)…cause of the nonassignment of errors, as required by § 997 [Rev.St., 28 U.S.C.A. § 862] and section 1012, Rev.St., having, by its rules, reserved the option to notice a plain error, whether assigned or not. Ackley School Dist. v. Hall, 106 U.S. 428, 1 S.Ct. 417, 27 L.Ed. 237; Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U.S. 609, 614, 10 S.Ct. 771, 34 L.Ed. 246, 249; United States v. Pena, 175 U.S. 500, 502, 20 S.Ct. 165, 44 L.Ed. 251, 252. “In the present case, the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error specifies ten…