Bailey v. Willeford

Fourth Circuit

Bailey v. Willeford

131 F. 242, 66 C.C.A. 229, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4289

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 1904

DocketNo. 534

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 131 F. 242 (Bailey v. Willeford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Willeford, 131 F. 242, 66 C.C.A. 229, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4289 (4th Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This motion is based upon the idea that the decree appealed from in this case is merely an interlocutory decree dissolving the preliminary restraining order awarded by the Circuit Judge in the first instance, and that since the passage of the act of June 6, 1900, c. 803, 31 Stat. 660 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 551], amending section 7 of the act establishing Circuit Courts of Appeals, no appeal lies from such an order or decree. It is conceded that, if this were an interlocutory order, the appeal would not lie to this court; but it appearing in this case from an inspection of the bill, the order appealed from, and the opinion of the court as contained in the record, that the court finally decided that it could grant the appellant no relief under the prayer of his bill, and that the order made was in fact a final order, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, regardless of the fact that the order does not in terms dismiss the bill.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This motion is based upon the idea that the decree appealed from in this case is merely an interlocutory decree dissolving the preliminary restraining order awarded by the Circuit Judge in the first instance, and that since the passage of the act of June 6, 1900, c. 803, 31 Stat. 660 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 551], amending section 7 of the act establishing Circuit Courts of Appeals, no appeal lies from such an order or decree. It is conceded that, if this were an interlocutory order, the appeal would not lie to this court; but it appearing in this case from an inspection of the bill, the order appealed from, and the opinion of the court as contained in the record, that the court finally decided that it could grant the appellant no relief under the prayer of his bill, and that the order made was in fact a final order, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, regardless of the fact that the order does not in terms dismiss the bill.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. 242, 66 C.C.A. 229, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-willeford-ca4-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack