CLARK
v.
HANCOCK
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 defendant in error may file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction before the return day of a writ of error, rather than being required to wait until that date as was previously required. The Court determined it had no jurisdiction in this case because no federal question was presented in the record, and it granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that allowing early dismissal motions prevents delays and expenses while furthering the ends of justice.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The final judgment in this case was rendered Oct. 3, 1876, and the writ of error issued Nov. 16, returnable to the October ^erm, 1877. The defendants in error, having filed a copy of the record and docketed the cause, now move to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction.
It is not claimed by the plaintiff in error that there is any Federal question disclosed by the record, but it is' insisted that a motion to dismiss cannot be entertained until the return-day of the writ. Such was the old practice; but in Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 671, and Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 id. 288, the rule was changed. It seemed to us then that such a change would “ be likely to prevent great delays and expense, and further the ends of justice.” Subsequent experience confirms, that opinion. In the present crowded state of our docket it becomes us to be especially careful that our jurisdiction is not .invoked for delay merely; and, when the record is presented in such a form that we can, without too great inconvenience, inform our-selves of the questions to be decided, we shall be inclined to receive applications of this kind. In the present case, we have a printed record, and it is evident we have no jurisdiction.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
ST. Louis v. S. Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1883)
-
THE Severance. THE Stone 6. Diamond S. S. Transp. Corp. v. Peoples Sav. Bank & Tr. Co., 152 F.2d 916 (4th Cir. 1945)…217, 47 S.Ct. 357, 71 L.Ed. 612. (3) A tug, in her home waters at any rate, is chargeable with knowledge of general conditions of navigation, such as tides, currents, chañéis, depth of waters and well-known obstructions. The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494, 24 L.Ed. 146; Gilchrist Transportation Co. v. Great Lakes Towing Co., D.C., 237 F. 432, 434. (4) The tug impliedly warrants that she has sufficient power and ability to perform the service to be undertaken, under conditions which are to be reasonably anticipated…
-
River Terminals Corp. v. Sw. Sugar & Molasses Co., Inc., 274 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1960)…, but owes to the tow the duty to exercise such reasonable care and maritime skill as prudent navigators employ in the performance of similar services. Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195, 52 S.Ct. 347, 76 L.Ed. 699; 'The Margaret’, 94 U.S. 494, 24 L.Ed. 146; The Lapwing, 5 Cir., 150 F. 2d 214; The Clarence L. Blakeslee, 2 Cir., 243 F. 365; The Atlantic City, 4 Cir., 241 F. 62.” Here, when it is undisputed that the tower delivered the barge at a time and under circumstances that allowed ample opportuni…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence