HURLEY
v.
JONES
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.
In Hurley v. Jones, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an appeal where the appellant failed to appear or ensure proper representation, despite his counsel of record having died before the case was called. The Court held that its rules requiring counsel appearance and case readiness would be rigidly enforced to prevent unnecessary delays in the crowded docket, and that parties bear responsibility for monitoring their counsel's status and maintaining active prosecution of their appeals.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
When this cause was reached in its order upon the docket, there being no appearance by the appellant, the appellee had him called and the appeal dismissed under Rule. 16. Our rules require that, “ upon the filing of the transcript of a record brought up by writ of error or appeal, the appearance of counsel for the plaintiff in error or appellant shall be entered.” Rule 9, par. 3. This rule was adopted for the purpose of making some attorney of the court responsible for the due prosecution of the suit-, and it was intended for something more than mere form. Parties should understand that they are represented here by their counsel, and that notice to counsel is ordinarily equivalent to notice to themselves.
This cause was docketed here nearly two years and a half before it was called. The attorney of record seems to have done all he was expected to do. But the appellant himself was so unmindful of his interests, that he did not know the counsel, upon whom he relied for the presentation of his case, had died before the commencement of the present term, and had been unable to attend to business on account of impaired health for a long time before his death. In the crowded state of our docket, filled with cases from all parts of the United States, it is our duty to take special care that the necessary delays in disposing of the business are not added to by the neglect of counsel or parties. For this reason, our rules requiring causes to be ready for hearing when reached are, and will continue to be, rigidly enforced.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. McCormack, 105 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1881)…cumstances the appellees were entitled, under Rule 16, to a dismissal. No notice of their in-' tention to enforce the rule was necessary. The appellant has not excused himself for his default, and his' case is clearly within that of Hurley v. Jones (97 U. S. 318), in which we announced our intention to enforce rigidly this salutary rule, and not to set aside defaults growing out of the neglect of counsel or parties, except for very good cause. Motion denied-.-…
-
Alvord v. United States, 99 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1878)…Mr. Chief Justice Waite announced the judgment of the court. This application comes directly within the rule laid down in Hurley v. Jones, 97 U. S. 318. As we took occasion to say in that case, “ our rules requiring causes to be ready for hearing when reached are and will continue to be rigidly enforced.” We recognize no pro forma attorneys of record. Counsel who enter their appearance under the re…
-
Newman v. Moyers, 253 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1920)…the defendant may have the plaintiff called, and [*186] dismiss the writ of error; or may open the record, and pray for an affirmance.” This practice is still in force under Rules 9 and 16 of this court. Todd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 511; Hurley v. Jones, 97 U. S. 318; The “S. S. Osborne,” 105 U. S. 447, 450-1. It is applicable to one of several joint appellants who fails, to perfect his appeal. Yates v. Jones National Bank, 206 U. S. 158, 166, 181. If the appellee had asked for an affirmance it is clear that it…