UNITED STATES
v.
CRUSELL
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 granted a continuance in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, holding that a pending motion for a new trial in the lower court does not require dismissal of an appeal, and that the timeliness of a motion for new trial should be addressed in the lower court rather than as a basis for dismissing an appeal. The Court cautioned that repeated motions for continuance would not be permitted to indefinitely postpone final resolution.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
In the case of the United States v. Ayres* this court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the'Court of Claims when the motion was made upon the sole ground that a motion for a new trial had been made by the United Stateá, and was pending in that court, but afterwards dismissed the same appeal when a new trial had been granted. We are satisfied with the ruliugs then announced, and think that the spirit of them requires us to allow the continuance now asked for. We must not be understood, however, as giving-any sanction to the idea that indefinite postponement of final hearing and determination can be obtained by repeated motions for continuance here.
The objection that more than two years had elapsed after judgm -t in the Court of Claims before the motion for new trial was made should be addressed to that court in opposition to the motion. Its decision, whatever it may be, can be reviewed here.
Continuance granted.
*
6 Wallace, 608.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Louis v. S. Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1883)
-
Belknap v. United States, 150 U.S. 588 (U.S. 1893)…itly provides that it may be exercised at any time within two years. This section has been before this court im several cases, and in them its scope and effect considered and determined. United States v. Ayres, 9 Wall. 608; United States v. Crusell, 12 Wall. 175; Ex parte Russel, 13 Wall. 664 ; Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699 United States v. Young, 94 U. S. 258; Young v. United States, 95 U. S. 641, 642, 643. That a mandate from this court does not prevent the operation of this statute or take awa}r t…