Brandies v. Cochrane

105 U.S. 262, 26 L. Ed. 989, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2117
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 13, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 105 U.S. 262 (Brandies v. Cochrane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U.S. 262, 26 L. Ed. 989, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2117 (1882).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.-

This is a motion to dismiss because the appeal was not taken within two years after the entry of the decree.

It appears from the record that the decree was entered on the 2d'of August,, 1879, and on thensarne day the complainants prayed an appeal, which was allowed upon their giving bond •according to law. No bond “was ever given, under this allowance,- and the case was "not docketed here at the October Term, 1879' On the first -of August, 1881, the circuit judge approved a bond for an appeal from the decree and signed a citation. The bond was on the same day filed’ with the clerk, and the citation served .on the 18th of August. .On the 8th of October the Circuit Court entered an order allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc as of August 1. The case was regularly •docketed in this court on the 13th of October.

The circuit judge, by taking the security and signing the citation, allowed an appeal. No formal order of allowance was necessary. Sage v. Railroad Company, 96 U. S. 712; Draper v. Davis, 102 id. 370. The appeal was, therefore; -taken in time. The order of October. 8th was not required to give it effect.

Motion denied.

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

Related

Cutting v. Bullerdick
178 F.2d 774 (Ninth Circuit, 1949)
Blaske v. Dick
126 F.2d 96 (Seventh Circuit, 1942)
Aderhold v. Murphy
103 F.2d 492 (Tenth Circuit, 1939)
Partos v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.
95 F.2d 738 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Pillsbury
93 F.2d 761 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Lamson Co. v. Evans
66 F.2d 513 (Second Circuit, 1933)
United States v. Beaman
61 F.2d 493 (Fifth Circuit, 1932)
Ross v. White
32 F.2d 750 (Sixth Circuit, 1929)
Standard Oil Co. v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.
32 F.2d 182 (Second Circuit, 1929)
Weinstein v. Black Diamond SS Corporation
31 F.2d 519 (Second Circuit, 1929)
In re Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co.
25 F.2d 329 (E.D. South Carolina, 1928)
Midland Terminal Ry. Co. v. Warinner
294 F. 185 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
Rector v. Alcorn
204 F. 748 (Fifth Circuit, 1913)
Ex Parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of New York
222 U.S. 578 (Supreme Court, 1911)
Blaffer v. New Orleans Water Supply Co.
160 F. 389 (Fifth Circuit, 1908)
Lookman v. Lang
132 F. 1 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Simpson v. First Nat. Bank
129 F. 257 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Williams Bros. v. Savage
120 F. 497 (Fourth Circuit, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 U.S. 262, 26 L. Ed. 989, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandies-v-cochrane-scotus-1882.