KILLIAN
v.
EBBINGHAUS

U.S. | 1884-05-05
111 U.S. 798 Supreme Court of the United States (1884) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 593 · 4 S. Ct. 697 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1844 · SCDB 1883-279
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Ebbinghaus brought suit against the trustees of the German Evangelical Concordia Church to recover possession of disputed property, and the lower court rendered a final decree in his favor. The Supreme Court reversed the mandate issued from the lower court because it contained an error in the description of the appealing party's name, and ordered a corrected mandate to be issued with the proper party designation.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought against the trustees of the German Evangelical Concordia Church, then in possession of the premises in dispute. They answered by that name, setting up their title to the property and their claim to the possession. The record shows a notice by Ebbinghaus, the appellee and com p'lainant below, to the trustees of the German Evangelical Lutheran Concordia Church. The final decree was against the “ trustees or authorities of the said Concordia Church, whether under the name of the trustees of the German Evangelical Concordia Church, or under the name of the trustees of the German Lutheran Evangelical Concordia Church.” The trustees appealed, but in their appeal bond they described themselves as trustees of the German Lutheran Evangelical Concordia Church. The case was entered here promptly and docketed in the name of John G. Killian et al., trusteesw of the German Lutheran Evangelical Concordia Church Appellants v. John W. Ebbinghaus, trustee. Both parties appeared and argued the case, as presented by the record, on its merits. No objection was made tó the form of the appeal. A mandate which was sent to the court below described the appeal as “taken by John G. Killian et al., trustees of the German Lutheran Evangelical Concordia Church.” As in this there was error, the mandate has been recalled, and we now order that a new mandate issue describing the cause below as between John W. Ebbinghaus, trustee, complainant, and John G. Killian et al., trustees of the German Evangelical Concordia Church, and August Sievers et al., trustees of the Eirst Reformed church defendants (Equity, No. 5,688) and the appeal as “taken by John G. Killian et al., trustees of the German Evangelical Concordia Church.”

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal, 105 Fla. 683 (Fla. 1931)
    …le v. Sprague, 57 Cal. 147; Rud v. Brd. of Com’rs of Pope County, 66 Minn. 358, 68 N. W. Rep. 1062, 69 N. W. Rep. 886; Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 13 Oregon 429, 11 Pac. Rep. 72; Underhill v. Town of Jericho, 66 Vt. 183, 28 Atl. 879; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 111 U. S. 798, 28 L. Ed. 592, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 698; Thomas v. Thomas, 27 Okla. 784, 109 Pac. Rep. 825, 113 Pac. Rep. 1058, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 124. [*706] The rule above quoted rests largely upon the doctrine that when the reviewing court regularly, without inadve…
  • Petition of Zeno, 14 F.2d 418 (1st Cir. 1926)
    …the Supreme Court of Porto Rico dismissing the appeal on the ground that it had not been properly perfected in the lower court was not a final decision in which a writ of error or appeal would lie to this court (Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796, 4 S. Ct. 697, 28 L. Ed. 602), and that, unless the reasons actuating the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in the dismissal of the appeal may be reconsidered here on this petition, the petitioner is without redress. We therefore proceed to consider whether the Suprem…
  • Melchior-Armstrong-Dessau Co. of Del., Inc. v. Banco Comercial de Puerto RICO, 23 F.2d 91 (1st Cir. 1927)
    …t was a refusal to hear and decide the case. This was in effect recognized by this court in Petition of Zeno, 14 F.(2d) 418, 423. The ease falls under the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Harriman v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796, 4 S. Ct. 697, 28 L. Ed. 602; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507, 23 L. Ed. 103; Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 21 L. Ed. 493. The result is that the present appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed, without costs.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw