RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
HARRIS
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.
The Supreme Court held that a writ of error does not operate as a supersedeas (an order staying the execution of a judgment) unless the party filing it complies with the statutory requirement to lodge a copy of the writ with the adverse party within ten days, as mandated by the Judiciary Act. The Court denied the railroad company's motion for writs of supersedeas because it failed to meet this procedural prerequisite.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The right of the plaintiff in órror to the writs for which the motion now before us is made, depends on the question whether, by the proceedings taken in the case, the writ of error upon the first judgment became a supersedeas?
And this question is answered by the express words of the twenty-third section of the Judiciary Act.
The legislature has seen fit to make the lodging of a -copy of the writ, within ten days, a prerequisite to the operation of the writ as a supersedeas. The cause was removed from the inferior court to this court, by the issuing of the writ; and the due service of it upon the court to which it is addressed; but its additional effect, as a supersedeas,, depends upon compliance with the conditions imposed by the .act. We cannot dispense with that compliance in respect' to lodging a copy for the adverse, party.
The motion for writs of supersedeas in both cases, must,'' therefore, be denied;,and as the second writ of error brings nothing before us, unless the writ in the first'case operated-as a supersedeas under the statute, that writ must be .
Dismissed.