WELCH
v.
MANDEVILLE

U.S. | 1812-03-05
Present....Ml the judges., Ml the Judges heing present,
7 Cranch 152 Supreme Court of the United States (1812) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 299 · 1812 U.S. LEXIS 379 · SCDB 1812-018
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch. Justice.

Marshall, Ch. Justice.

The majority of the .'Court is of opinion that the motion to re-instate the cause, was an application to the discretion of the Coürt, and its refusal is not a ground for a writ of error. After the Court had delivered this opinion it became, a question whether the writ of error should be dismissed, op the judgment affirmed.

After consideration of the case again,

(In the 7th of March, Marshaii, CL Justice, stated it to be the opinion of the Court, that the judgment of the Court below should bp affirmed. The writ of error is to the judgment generally. The refusal to re-instate the cause being no error in law, the Court can see no error in the principal judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Conn v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 108 F.2d 390 (7th Cir. 1939)
    …393] Board was without authority. The rule seems to have been long established that judicial, as well as quasi-judicial tribunals do not lose jurisdiction of a cause by its dismissal with a proviso authorizing its reinstatement. Welch v. Mandeville, 11 U. S. 152, 7 Cranch 152, 3 L.Ed. 299; Zadig v. Aetna Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 42 F. 2d 142; United States v. Sixty-Five Cases of Glove Leather, D.C., 254 F. 211; Weisguth v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur, 272 Ill. 541, 112 N.E. 350. In the Glove Leather case, the court,…
  • Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634 (U.S. 1833)
  • Murphy v. Angus Stewart, 2 How. 263 (U.S. 1844)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw