BROCKETT ET AL.
v.
BROCKETT
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.
In this appeal from an equity decree, the Supreme Court rejected multiple grounds for dismissing the appeal, including that not all defendants signed the appeal bond, that an appeal was taken from the trial court's discretionary refusal to reopen a prior decree, and that the appeal was untimely under federal law. The Court held that all defendants need not sign the appeal bond if it provides adequate security, that appeals from discretionary orders cannot reach the Supreme Court, that the appeal was timely because the final decree was suspended by the court's subsequent actions and the appeal was filed within ten days of that suspension, and that no writ of error or citation was required when the appeal was made in open court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinión of the court.
A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal upon several grounds. The first is, that although all the defendants have appealed from the decree of the court below, yet a part of them, only, have signed the appeál bond. This objection is not maintainable. It is not necessary that all the defendants should join in the appeal bond, although all must join in the appeal. It is sufficient if the appeal bond is approved by the court, as satisfactory and complete security by whomsoever it may be executed.
The next ground is, that an appeal has.been taken from the refusal of the court below to open the former decree, rendered for the appellant; . It is. plain that no appeal lies to this court in such a matter, as it rests merely in the sound discretion of the court below. And if this had been the sole appeal in the case, the appeal must have been dismissed. But an appeal has also been taken to the first decree (which was a final decree) rendered by the court. That decree was rendered on the 10th of May, 1843. During the sainé term, a petition was filed by the defendants on the 26 th day of the same month, to have the .final decree opened for certain purposes ; and the court, took cognisance of the petition and referred it to a master commissioner. His report was.made on the 9th of June following, the same term still continuing; and the court then'refusgd to open the final decree; and fronji this refusal as well as from,the final decree, the defendants took an appeal, and gave bond with sufficient sureties, on the 15th day of the same month, and the appeal was then allowed by the court. Before that time the court had not fixed the penalty of the bond.
Now, the argument is, that as the original final decree was rendered more than one month before the appeal, it could not operate under, the laws of the United States as a supersedeas, or to stay execution on tfre decree,; because to have, such an effect the appeal should be made and-the bond should be given within ten. days after the final decree. But the short and conclusive answer to this .objection’is,that the final decree of the 10th of May was suspended by the subsequent action of the court; and it did not take effect until the 9th of June, and that the appeal was duly taken and the appeal bond given within ten days from this last period.
Another and the last ground of exception is to the want of proper parties to the writ of error ahd citation. No writ of error lies in this case, but an appeal only; and the appeal having been made in open court, no citation was necessary.
Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal ought to be overruled, and it is accordingly overruled. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (37 total)
-
Thomas E. Stribling et ux. v. Hart, 20 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1883)
-
Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1937)…ning Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 36; Voorhees v. Noye Mjg. Co., 151 U. S. 135; Zimmern v. United States, 298 U. S. 167. United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55; United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304; and eases cited in Note 8. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238; Steines v. Franklin County, 14 Wall. 15; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756; Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697; San Pedro Co. v. United States, 146 U. S. 120. Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103, 106; Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151, 154; Clarke v. Ho…
-
Pfister v. N. Ill. Fin. Corp., 317 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1942)…counted from the later order refusing to modify the original. An appeal does not lie from [*150] the denial of a petition for rehearing. Conboy v. First National Bank, 203 U. S. 141, 145; Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U. S. 262, 266; Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238; Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103; Jones v. Thompson, 128 F. 2d 888; Missouri v. Todd, 122 F. 2d 804. On the other hand, where out of time petitions for rehearing are filed and the referee or court merely considers whether the petition sets out, a…
Previewing 3 of 37 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence