NICKLE AND ANOTHER
v.
STEWART AND ANOTHER
NICKLE AND ANOTHER
STEWART AND ANOTHER
111 U.S. 776
Supreme Court of the United States (1884)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 599 · 4 S. Ct. 700 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1836 · SCDB 1883-271
Cited by 43 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the'opinion of the court.
Without intending to decide that an appeal lies to this court from an order óf a circuit court, or of a district court exercising circuit court powers, refusing leave to file a bill of review, we hold that the refusal in this case was right.. The bill as presented has none of the characteristics of a bill of review. No errors of law appearing on the face of the record are assigned, and there is no allegation of any discovery of new matter since the decree was rendered.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (37 total)
-
Theo. Hirsch Co. v. Paul R. Scott for McDonald Furniture Co., 87 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1924)…ghts, may be appealed from, is well established by the decisions of this court. Blossom v. Milwaukee, etc. Railroad Co., 1 Wall. 655; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684; Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776. “The question in such cases is not whether the order complained of is of a character decisive of questions- that the parties are entitled to have reviewed in the Appellate Court, but whether the order or decree is of that final nature which alone…
-
Zirot v. Gilmer, 336 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…of the cars, during the time they were used by the receivers appointed by the state court and for six months before was proper. The court did not allow it in this case, apparently because Schall recovered his railroad cars anyway; Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U.S. 776, 4 S.Ct. 675, 28 L.Ed. 596 (1884) (This also involved a railroad foreclosure. The court allowed payment by the receiver out of the current income for coal delivered prior to the appointment of the receiver. The rationale was that the payment of coal…
-
Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., 309 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1940)…osdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235; Hale v. Frost, 99 U. S. 389, 392. Claims having such equities may be accorded priority in payment although they arose prior to the receivership. Miltenberger v. Logansport Railway Co., 106 U. S. 286; Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434. It is manifest that the reasonable classification of claims as entitled to priority because of superior equities may be the subject of determination by Congress in providing for the distri…
Previewing 3 of 37 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence