MOULDER
v.
FORREST

U.S. | 1869-02-15
No. 371
19 L. Ed. 154 Supreme Court of the United States (1869) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: SCDB 1868-102 · 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1095
Cited by 15 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Chase

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

The motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of the test required by the process act of 1789, 1 U. S. Stat. 93, must be allowed. The defect in the test was doubtless occasioned by an oversight of the clerk below; but a majority of the court is of the opinion that the writ cannot be amended here without departure from its established practice. Insurance Company v. Mordecai, 21 How. 195; Porter v. Foley, 21 How. 393. Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • George Hyman Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 582 F.2d 834 (4th Cir. 1978)
    …decision to stand is analogous to the case of split decision affirmances by a court of appeals or the Supreme Court under which the lower court decision is allowed to stand. Mr. Justice Field noted in Durant v. Essex Co., 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 107, 112, 19 L.Ed. 154 (1868), that: In cases of appeal or writ of error in this court, the appellant or plaintiff in error is always the moving party. It is affirmative action which he asks. The question presented is, shall the judgment, or decree, be reversed? If the j…
  • Guillot v. Cenac Towing Co., Inc., 366 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1966)
    …42, 315 U.S. 203, 216, 62 S.Ct. 552, 558, 86 L.Ed. 796, 810; Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 1960, 364 U.S. 263, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 4 L.Ed. 2d 1708; Cooper v. Aaron, 1958, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5; Durant v. Essex Co., 1869, 7 Wall. 107, 110, 19 L.Ed. 154, 156; Hertz v. Woodman, 1910, 218 U.S. 205, 30 S.Ct. 621, 54 L. Ed. 1001; Kovacs v. Cooper, 1949, 336 U.S. 77, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513, 10 A.L.R.2d 608. . See the opinion of Mr. Justice Clark in Jane Smith: “It is also reasonable to read the Li…
  • Kaku Nagano v. Brownell, 212 F.2d 262 (7th Cir. 1954)
    …that fact. A judgment affirmed by a divided court is as conclusive and binding upon the parties as if rendered upon the concurrence of all participating judges upon every question involved in the case. Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 74 U.S. 107, 19 L.Ed. 154. Moreover, we think there is nothing in the language of the Guessefeldt case which impinges in any way upon the soundness of this conclusion. The Custodian attempts to read into our original decision a declaration that “residence is synonymous wit…

Previewing 3 of 11 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