PACIFIC EXPRESS CO.
v.
MALIN
PACIFIC EXPRESS CO.
MALIN
131 U.S. 394
Supreme Court of the United States (1888)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 33 L. Ed. 204 · 9 S. Ct. 792 · 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2046 · SCDB 1888-005
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per curiam
: This case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
Mr. Phillips, at a later day, moved the court for the issuance of a mandate, and, as cause therefor, he stated that no notice of the motion for the mandate had been served on the opposite party; but that no opposition had been made to the dismissal of the case, and, as the dismissal had been made for want of jurisdiction, there would seem to be no reason why the mandate should be withheld.
Pee cueiam
: Sufficient cause has been shown, and the mandate may issue at once.
Mandate issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Wash., 16 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1926)…d begin to run despite the blank. Prescott, etc., Co. v. Atchison, etc., Co., 84 F. 213, 28 C. C. A. 481. [7] Even if the deeree had directed some things to be done in future, it would have been final nevertheless. Radford v. Folsom, 131 U. S. 392, 9 S. Ct. 792, 33 L. Ed. 203. Furthermore the language of the deeree as signed on September 18, 1924, never changed, there was no amendment or addition, and the situation shown in Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153, 18 L. Ed. 762, did not and does not exist. [8…