SPRING ET AL.
v.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY
SPRING ET AL.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY
6 Wheat. 519
Supreme Court of the United States (1821)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 5 L. Ed. 320 · 1821 U.S. LEXIS 370 · SCDB 1821-032
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Court denied the motion, but stated that as the object of the respondents was to have the proceeds of the property in litigation, which had been sold by order of the Court below, invested in stocks, such investment might be made by the Court below, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal in this Court.
Motion denied.a
a
Vide new rule of Court of the present term. Ante, Rule XXXII.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wm. W. Jackson v. H. M. Wade Mfg. Co., Inc., 105 Fla. 560 (Fla. 1932)…roperty, as for instance concerning its distribution, the appeal from such order would not deprive the trial court from taking all steps necessary to preserve the fund pending the appeal. See Spring vs. South Carolina Ins. Co., 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 519, 5 L. Ed. 320; May v. Printup, 59 Ga. 128 (text 135); Williams Case, 3 Bland’s Ch. (Md.) 186 (text 217); Moran v. Johnston, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 108, (text 110); Beard v. Arbuckle, 19 W. Va. 145, (text 148). As the equity of the bill and therefore the jurisdiction of…
-
The McKinnon-Young Co. v. Page, 53 Fla. 734 (Fla. 1907)…y orders, to. preserve, the fund, and direct its receiver to that extent, it cannot place the money beyond the "control of any decree that may be nxade here, for that would, be to defeat our jurisdiction.” Spring v. The South Carolina Insurance Co., 6 Wheat. 519. The real effect of an appeal with supex»sedeas is to suspend the power of the court below to xnake any order tending towards an execution or enforcement of the decree appealed from, but it does not interfere with the poxver of such couxff to make a…