BROBST
v.
BROBST

U.S. | 1864-12-01
2 Wall. 96 Supreme Court of the United States (1864) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 17 L. Ed. 905 · SCDB 1864-048 · 1864 U.S. LEXIS 411
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice NELSON

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

It appears that an appeal has been taken from that part of the case covered by the final decree, and a certificate of division-upon the residue.

There is no objection to this practice. It has been recognized and acted upon in several instances in this court. The questions arising on this appeal, and on the certificate of division, come up together, and-are heard on-the same record,.

The omission to file the bond, under the circumstances, may be corrected by filing one in conformity with the act of Congress. The peculiar state of the record, and, mode of bringing up the questions from the court below, probably misled the solicitors.

Let a rule be entered, that the appellant have sixty days from notice of it, to file a bond with the clerk of the court, to be approved by the proper officer, upon complying with which, this motion be dismissed; otherwise granted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Peugh v. Davis, 110 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1884)
    …uld have been given here, and cases have been brought here where no bond' was approved by the court below, and the court has permitted the appellant to give bond in this court.” Anson Bangs & Co. v. Blue Ridge Railroad, 23 How. 1; Brobst v. Brobst, 2 Wall. 96; Seymour v. Free, 5 Wall. 822, are cases of that character. And in The Dos Hermanos, 10 Wheat. 306, Avhere an appeal was prayed within the five years’ limitation, and was actually allowed by the court within that period although the bond was not giv…
  • I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. (D. Mass. 1922)
    …estopped by the interlocutory decree pro confesso. McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Ry., 146 U. S. 536, 545, 13 S. Ct. 170, 36 L. Ed. 1079; Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, 524, 17 S. Ct. 407, 41 L. Ed. 810; Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106, 17 L. Ed. 905; Australian Knitting Co. v. Gormly (C. C.) 138 F. 92, 100, and eases there cited. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether the Essex Rubber Company could, in any view, be regarded as a party to the cause and bound by a decree therein, if a fi…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw