JAMES B. PECK, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN SANDERSON, LIBELLANT

U.S. | 1855-12-01
18 How. 42 Supreme Court of the United States (1855) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 15 L. Ed. 262 · 1855 U.S. LEXIS 657 · SCDB 1855-002
Cited by 12 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

The Supreme Court denied a motion for reargument in a maritime case after the appellee's counsel requested reconsideration due to illness that prevented his attendance at the original hearing. The Court held that it lacked authority to grant a rehearing in a case that had already been remitted to the lower court, following established precedent that this procedural bar applies regardless of the circumstances preventing counsel's participation.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McLEAN

Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by Mr. Rush, counsel for the appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was "prevented by sickness from attending the court at the time of the hearing.

It is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a failure in the mail, was unknown to the court.

In the above case, the' brief of the counsel was before the. court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have changed the result.

But in the case of Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, it was held that this court cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted .to the court below; and in the case of the Washington Bridge Company v. Stewart, et al. 3 How. 413, the same principle was recognized. The motion is overruled.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1927)
    …ed, but not later. It is contended- by the plaintiff in error' that' the motion to retax costs would amend the judgment after the term and must be denied, for the rear son that this Court has no further jurisdiction in the matter. Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 491, 492; Schell v. Dodge, 107 U. S. 629, 630; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 674. In answer, it is said that this limitation upon the power of the court does not include mere misprisions of the clerk or c…
  • Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1877)
    …elow had not at that time any power to supply a special finding of facts. Noonan v. Bradley, 12 Wall. 121; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. 413; Skillin's Ex'rs v. May's Ex'rs, 6 Cranch, 267; Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488; Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. 149. Support to the theory that the special finding, if any, in such' a case should be prepared and filed before or at the time the judgment is rendered, is derived from the presen…
  • Wabash R.R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1904)

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

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw