LLOYD N. ROGERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF ELIZA PARK CUSTIS, EDMUND L. ROGERS, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ELIZA L. ROGERS AND ELEANOR A. ROGERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH E. LAW, BY MARY ROBINSON, HIS NEXT FRIEND
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 Supreme Court appeal, the Court dismissed the case for defects in the appellate record and procedure, finding that the appellants failed to properly document and maintain their appeal following its initial dismissal and the issuance of a writ of procedendo. The Court held that the incomplete record, which lacked dates, citations, and clear documentation of the appeal's history, did not satisfy the requirements for sustaining an appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.
The facts, as they appear of record, on the motion to dismiss this appeal, are as follows:
The decree of the Circuit Court was pronounced 21st January, 1856. An appeal was prayed from said decree, and granted the same day, 21st January, 1856. This appeal was docketed and dismissed under the 63d rule of this court, at December term, 1856, to wit: 27th February, 1857; and a writ of procedendo was issued 19th, May, 1857.
The appellants filed this record and docketed the case 3d April, 1857. The record in this case stated that an appeal had been prayed and allowed, but does not giye any date. There is no statement of any prior appeal in this record. The appeal bond is dated 4th February, 1856. There is no citation in this record.
The appellants filed the eitation and bond, 30th April, 1857, and directed the clerk to docket this case, to transfer the record filed in the last case to this, to attach said citation and bond to said record, and to print all the papers in this case. There is no statement of any other appeal than that set out; and this seems to be the appeal that was docketed and dismissed 27th February, 1857.
As the record now stands, it is not perceived how this appeal can be sustained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rodes, 115 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1934)
-
Gagliardi v. Flint, 564 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1977)…y damages in the federal courts under the only significant lower federal court jurisdiction then extant, the diversity jurisdiction. In a series of cases beginning at least as early as Commissioner of Knox County v. Aspinwall, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 539, 16 L.Ed. 208 (1859), and extending to Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 175, 17 L.Ed. 520 (1864), the Court fashioned a “general” common law of negotiability of municipal bonds, enforced by the entry of money judgments against municipalities.15 And in Board…
-
Rd. Improvement Dist. NO. 7 OF Poinsett Cnty. v. Guardian Sav. & Tr. Co., 8 F.2d 932 (8th Cir. 1925)…to defeat this suit of the purchasers to collect them by such defects in their proceedings as are now under consideration, on the ground that they made them illegal or invalid and their certificate false. Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, 544, 16 L. Ed. 208; Knox County v. Wallace, 21 How. 549, 16 L. Ed. 211; Town of Aurora v. Gates, 208 F. 101, 104, 105, 108, 109, 125 C. C. A. 329, L. R. A. 1915A, 910; Id., 232 U. S. 722, 34 S. Ct. 330, 58 L. Ed. 814; National Life Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 62 F…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence