HAMILTON VERSUS MOORE
HAMILTON VERSUS MOORE
3 Dall. 371
Supreme Court of the United States (1797)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 1 L. Ed. 642 · 1797 U.S. LEXIS 207 · SCDB 1797-008
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
Bur, Tke-Court obferved, that there was no error in point of fa¿t; nor. any clerical error to amend. The writ bears the date when it was adtually fued out and lodged in the office: there is, therefore, nothing on the record, by which it can be amended; and the objection is fatal;
• The Writ of Error'was, therefore, non-prcjfcd.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1878)…s not filed and the cause docketed during the term to which it was made returnable, or some sufficient excuse given for the delay, the writ of error or appeal became inoperative, and the cause might, on that account, be dismissed. Hamilton v. Moore, 3 Dall. 371; Blair v. Miller, 4 Dall. 21; Steamer Virginia v. West et al., 19 How. 182; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 47; Same v. Gomez, id. 752; Mesa v. United States, [*507] 2 Black, 721; Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355; Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 7 id. 306.…
-
Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1889)
-
The State of N.J. v. The People of the State of N.Y., 5 Pet. 284 (U.S. 1831)…Carolina, the service of the subpoena having been proved, the court determined, that the complainant was at liberty to proceed exparrte. He accordingly moved for and obtained commissions to take the examination of witnesses in several of the states. 3 Dall. 371. Fowler v. Lindsey, and Fowler v. Miller, 3 Dall. 411, were ejectments depending in the circuit court for the district of Connecticut, for lands over which both New York and Connecticut claimed jurisdiction. A rule to show cause why these suits shou…