JOHN S. BUCKINGHAM AND MARK BUCKINGHAM, APPELLANTS,
v.
NATHANIEL C. MCLEAN, ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF JOHN MAHARD, JR.

U.S. | 1851-12-01
13 How. 150 Supreme Court of the United States (1851) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 14 L. Ed. 90 · SCDB 1851-063 · 1851 U.S. LEXIS 843
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this appeal from a Circuit Court decree in a bankruptcy case, the Supreme Court rejected the appellee's motion to dismiss based on lack of proper notice of appeal, holding that the motion was untimely where the appellee entered a general appearance in the case without promptly objecting to the defective notice and that a properly perfected appeal brings all matters decided against the appellants before the Court for review.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McLEAN.

Mr. Justice McLEAN.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the Ohio District, and a motion is made to dismiss it on two grounds.

1. Because no-citation has been issued:

2. “ Because the appeal is .from the decree of 1848 and, interlocutory decrees, whereas all the .matters contested by the appellants were finally adjudicated and decreed at the November term, 1846, from which decree an appeal-was taken which was dismissed by this court, and no appeal has been since taken.”

At November term, .1846, a decree was entered against the appellants. In January term, 1847, an appeal was prayed by thém from that decree, which was granted, and bond was given. But the appellants failing to file the record and docket the cause in this court, as required by the rules, it was, on motion of the appellee’s counsel docketed and dismissed at. December term, 1847. .At the same term a motion was made to reinstate the cause upon the docket; which motion was overruled. Afterward, at October term, 1849, the appellants prayed an appeal from the final decree made at the November term, 1848, which was granted, and that is the appeal which is now pending.

It seems that no notice of this appeal has been served on the appellee, and on that ground the motion to dismiss is made. A general appearance was entered by the counsel for the appellee at December term, 1850, but the motion to dismiss was not filed' until February, 1852. • In the case of McDonough v. Millaudon, 8 How. 707, a motion was made to dismiss the cause on the ground that the clerk of .the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued the writ of error, and signed the citation; and1 the court said, “ this case has been here for two terms; a writ of certiorari has been sent down, at the instance of the defendant in error, in whose behalf the motion is made, to. complete the record.; he now moves to dismiss for the first time, and we think he comes too late.”

The object of a citation on a writ of error or an appeal is to' give notice of the removal of the cause, and such notice may be waived by entering a general appearance by counsel. "Where an appearance is entered, the objection that notice has not been given is a mere technicality, and the party availing himself of it, should, at the first term he appears, give notice of the motion to dismiss, and that his appearance is entered for that purpose. A delay to give this" notice may throw the other party off his guard, .until the limitation of the writ of error or the appeal may have,-, expired. In this case we think the motion is made too. late. > •

. The record appeal Was regularly taken-*and perfected. By this appeal all the questions are brought before us, which were decided to the prejudice of the appellants. From the nature of the controversy until the final decree was entered, as between all the parties, the case could not, properly, be brought before this court. The motion to dismiss is overruled.

When the case was called in its regular order, it was argued, and the following "is a report of it.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Pearce v. Thackeray, 13 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1869)
  • Wilson v. Nelson, 183 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1901)
    …n, 21 Wall. 360, and National Bank v. Warren, 96 U. S. 539, have no application, because they were decided under the act of 1867, which expressly required the debtor to have acted- with intent to give a preference. The case of Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. 150, arose under the still earlier Bankrupt Act of August 19, 1841, c. 9, § 2. 5 Stat. 442. And the point there decided was that a power of attorney to confess a judgment was an act of the bankrupt creating a “ security,” which that bankrupt act in expr…
  • Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198 (U.S. 1857)

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw