ABADIE
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1893-05-01
No. 260
149 U.S. 261 Supreme Court of the United States (1893) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 37 L. Ed. 726 · 13 S. Ct. 836 · 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2292 · SCDB 1892-209
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice :

[*262] The Chief Justice :

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California in a proceeding under the act of Congress of February 25, 1885, entitled “An act to prevent unlawful’ occupancy of the public lands,” 23 Stat. 321, c. 149, whereby appellant was directed to remove, a fence and enclosure from certain sections of land therein described, in default of which it was decreed that the same should be destroyed by the marshal for said district. The value of the fence was claimed to exceed $5000; but the fence was not the matter in dispute, nor was the appellant deprived thereof. For want of the jurisdictional amount, Cameron v. United States, 146 U. S. 533, the appeal must be

Dismissed*

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Payne, 72 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1934)
    …. 408; Carter v. Long, 124 Ala. 330, 27 So. 465; Schoonover v. Reed, 65 Ind. 313; Freeman v. Moffitt (Mo. Sup.) 32 S. W. 300; Reliable Incubator & Brooder Co. v. Stahl (C. C. A.) 102 F. 590. See, also, U. S. v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; O’Connell v. U. S., 253 U. S. 142, 40 S. Ct. 444, 64 L. Ed. 827; Exporters, etc., v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U. S. 365, 42 S. Ct. 331, 66 L. Ed. 663; Taylor v. U. S., 286 U. S. 1, 52 S. Ct. 466, 76 L. Ed. 951. The clerk of the District Court…
  • Wainer v. United States, 87 F.2d 77 (7th Cir. 1937)
    …. 43, 37 L. Ed. 1037; Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249, 23 L.Ed. 319; City of Harper, Kan v. Daniels (C.C.A.) 211 F. 57; Robertson v. Cockrell (C.C.A.) 209 F. 843; Miller v. Morgan (C. C.A.) 67 F. 82; United States v. Jones, 149 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 840, 37 L.Ed. 726. In the rules the Supreme Court has substituted for the trial term a period of thirty [*80] days, and orders entered after the expiration of that time are beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the order of November 10th extending the time for…
  • United States v. Seale, 45 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1930)
    …of exceptions, and such bill is the one that we are asked to consider. Appellee’s motion was well taken, as the power of the court in the absence of an extension order ended with the trial term. United States v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; Jennings v. Philadelphia, etc., Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 255, 31 S. Ct. 1, 54 L. Ed. 1031. And such power could not be restored by a nunc pro tune order. Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 12 S. Ct. 450, 36 S. Ct. 162; Exporters v. Butter…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw