ROEMER
v.
SIMON ET AL.
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 after an appeal in equity, it lacks the authority to set aside a decree on motion and grant a rehearing, and can only affirm, reverse, or modify the decree upon hearing the cause. The Court further ruled that once the term in which a final decree was rendered has passed, the court below cannot grant a rehearing, and any application for such relief must be directed to the lower court rather than to the Supreme Court itself.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. i
It is clear, that, after an appeal in equity to this court, we cannot, upon motion, set aside a decree of the court below, and grant a rehearing. ' We can only affirm, reverse, or modify the decree appealed from, and that upon the hearing of the cause. No new evidence can be received here. Rév. Stat. sect. 698. The court below cannot grant a rehearing'after .the term at which the final decree was rendered. Equity Rule, 88. It would be useless to remand this cause, theféfore, as the term at which the decree was rendered has passed. If the term still continued, the proper practice would be to make application to the court below for a rehearing, and have that court send to us a request for a return of the record,' in order that it- : might proceed further with the cause. Should such á request' be made, we might, in a proper case and under proper restrictions, make the necessary order; but we cannot make such .an order on the application of the parties. The court below alone can make the request of us. The application of the parties must be addressed to that court, and not to us.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (72 total)
-
Marion and Mary A. S. Sanderson v. Sanderson's Administrators, 20 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1883)
-
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944)…1. United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315; 167 U. S. 224, 238. The facts with respect to the fraud practiced on the Patent Office have been known for some years. Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38; Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. 149; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 672, 678; Hickman v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415; Tubman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 190 U. S. 38; Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U. S. 141, 151-2; In re Metropolitan Trust Co., 218 U. S. 312, 320; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.…1 / 2
-
Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1932)…ing of the merits of the controversy which was determined by the final decree, or of the modification of that decree, after the expiration of the term in which an application for that purpose could properly be made.. Equity Rule 69; Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. 149; Brooks v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 443; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 415. This proceeding was for the enforcement of the decree, and not to review or alter it. It was heard and determined as a proceeding for civil, not criminal, contempt. 50 F…
Previewing 3 of 72 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence