AMORY
v.
AMORY ET AL.
Mr.' Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of ,the court.
We cannot dismiss a case on motion ¿imply because we may be of the opinion that it has been brought here for delay only. Both parties have the right to be heard on the merits; and one party cannot require the other to come to such a hearing upon a mere motion to dismiss. To dismiss-under such circumstances would be to decide that the case had no merits. Neither can we advance a cause for argument for the reason that we may think it has no merits.. Further argument may show the contrary.
We can adjudge damages, under sect. 1010 Rev. Stat. and rule 23, in all cases where it appears that a writ of error has been sued out merely'for delay. This gives us the only power we have tó prevent frivolous appeals, and writs of error; and we deem it not improper to say that this power will be exercised without hesitation in all cases where we find that our jurisdiction has been invoked merely to gain time.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dzialynski v. Bank of Jacksonville, 23 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1887)
-
Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1912)…has been decided that where there was no power on a motion to .dismiss to consider whether a case was prosecuted for delay only that a prayer for dismissal on such [*107] ground could not be allowed and damages could not be awarded. Amory v. Amory, 91 U. S. 356. But the mere statement of the doctrine demonstrates that it rested upon the obvious proposition that a decree would not be made to embrace subjects which the court was hot empowered to consider in determining whether the relief asked for should be…
-
Cleveland & Pittsburgh R.R. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 235 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1914)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence