JAMES INNERARITY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THOMAS BYRNE

U.S. | 1847-01-01
5 How. 295 Supreme Court of the United States (1847) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 12 L. Ed. 159 · 1847 U.S. LEXIS 324 · SCDB 1847-015
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McLEAN

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court, saying, that the citation was not necessarily a part of the record, it forming no part of the proceedings of the court below. The presumption is, that one was issued when the writ of error was allowed, and it may be proved aliimde.

Motion overruled, and case continued to next term.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Butler v. Goreley, 146 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1892)
    …of Massachusetts was unconstitutional, we think there is no force in it, in view of the decisions of this court on the subject. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348; Cook v. Moffat, 5 How. 295; Bank of Tennessee v. Horn, 17 How. 157; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; Baldwin v. Bank of Newbury, 1 Wall. 234; Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409 Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. [*314] 107; Geilinger v. Philippi, 133 U. S.…
  • Hudgins v. Wyndham Kemp, 18 How. 530 (U.S. 1855)
    …ox, 7 Pet. 220. The aet of March 3,1803,-which authorizes the appeals, provides that they shall be subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions as are prescribed by law in cases of writs of error. And in the base of Innerarity v. Byrne, 5 How. 295, where the record transmitted to this court did not show that a citation had been issued and served, it was held to be no ground for dismissing the case, and that the fact might be proved aliunde. It is not necessary that, all of the steps required…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw