BOSTON MINING COMPANY
v.
EAGLE MINING COMPANY
BOSTON MINING COMPANY
EAGLE MINING COMPANY
115 U.S. 221
Supreme Court of the United States (1885)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 29 L. Ed. 392 · 6 S. Ct. 33 · 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1831 · SCDB 1885-004
Cited by 34 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mw. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. When this cause was reached on the call of the docket it was submitted by the defendant, in error on a printed brief. An assignment of errors was not annexed to or returned with the writ of error, as required by § 997 Kev. Stat. At the last term the counsel for the plaintiff in error was permitted to withdraw his appearance, and no one has taken his place. No argument has been submitted in behalf of the plaintiff in error, and no errors have been assigned in any form. We, therefore, affirm the judgment without opening the record.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
United States v. Cole, 45 F.2d 339 (6th Cir. 1930)…8, e. 10, § 391, U. S. Code (28 USCA § 391); Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150, 164, 13 S. Ct. 288, 37 L. Ed. 118; Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co., 121 U. S. 264, 278, 7 S. Ct. 875, 30 L. Ed. 967; Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U. S. 222, 227, 6 S. Ct. 33, 29 L. Ed. 373. The remaining assignment urged was the exclusion of appellant’s Exhibit 3.1 We see no reason for any distinction between this exhibit and appellee’s Exhibits H and I. They were all certificates from medical officers, and were all pr…
-
Giffin v. Ensign, 234 F.2d 307 (3d Cir. 1956)…on which they rely most heavily, Silver v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1940, 116 F. 2d 59, is against them. At page 62 of that opinion the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit quotes with approval from Lancaster v. Collins, 1885, 115 U.S. 222, 225, 6 S.Ct. 33, 29 L.Ed. 373: “‘It is also assigned for error that the court refused to permit the counsel for the plaintiff to make the closing argument to the jury, the contention on the part of the plaintiff being that the affirmative was with him. But this is…
-
Odegard v. Gen. Cas. & Sur. Co., 44 F.2d 31 (8th Cir. 1930)…decisions of the highest court of a state giving construction to a state statute, where no question of general or commercial law, or of violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is involved (Norton v. Shelby County, 3.18 U. S. 425, 6 S. Ct. 33.21, 30 L. Ed. 178; Stutsman County v. Wallace, 142 U. S. 293, 12 S. Ct. 227, 35 L. Ed. 3.018; Yocum v. Parker, 134 F. 205 [C. C. A. 8]; Nielsen v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 187 F. 393 [C. C. A. 8]); also the decisions of the highest court of the state obv…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence