CAMERON
v.
M'ROBERTS
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.
The Supreme Court held that a circuit court lacked power to set aside its decree on motion after the term in which it was rendered, and therefore could not exercise such power after five years had elapsed; the Court also established that jurisdiction could be exercised against an individual defendant where he held a distinct interest, even if other defendants with joint interests were not before the court, provided that substantial justice could be done without affecting those other defendants.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Geetiexcate. This cause came on to be heard on the statement of facts contained in the record, and on the questions on which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed, and which were, therefore, at the request of one of the parties, adjourn1ed to this court, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, this court doth order it to Tie certified to the circuit court of the línited States for the district of. Kentucky.
1st. That in this case the court had not power over its decree, so as to set the same aside on motion after the expiration of the term in which it was rendered.
2d. Consequently, such power cannot be exercised after the lapse of five years.
3d. If ¿ joint interest vested in. Cameron and the other defendants, the court had no jurisdiction over the cause. If a distinct interest vested in Cameron» so that substantial justice (so far as he was . in- ‘ tetested) could be done without affee'ing the other defendants,the jurisdiction of the court might be exercised as to him alone.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Thomas E. Stribling et ux. v. Hart, 20 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1883)
-
Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1939)…ed without any suggestion'that the application for them was not timely. Prior to the adoption of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, a final decree in a suit in equity could be revised only during the term of court of its entry. Cameron v. M’Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Buckeye Co. v. Hocking Valley Co., 269 U. S. 42. The same'limitation existed on the power of a district court to grant a rehearing of an appealable decree. Equity Rule 88. These time limitations are no longer applicable. Rules 59 and 60 of the Rule…
-
United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)…ple obtains that a court cannot set aside or alter its final judgment after the expiration of the term at which it was entered, unless the proceeding for that purpose was begun during that term. Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch, 1; Cameron v. M'Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488, 492; Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 415-417; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 673, 674; Hickman v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 255; Tub…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence