Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.

150 U.S. 82, 14 S. Ct. 22, 37 L. Ed. 1007, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2354
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 30, 1893·No. 195·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The Chief Justice:

Wq. should not have been called on to reiterate the rule that án application for a rehearing cannot be entertained when presented after the expiration of the term at which the judgment was- rendered. Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch, 1; Browder v. M'Arthur, 7 Wheat. 58; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488 ; Brooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U. S.107 ; Williams v. Conger, 131 U. S. 390.

Application denied.

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

Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co., 150 U.S. 82, 14 S. Ct. 22, 37 L. Ed. 1007, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2354 (1893).

150 U.S. 82 (Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wojculewicz v. State
117 A.2d 439 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)
Watson v. Gallagher
202 F.2d 641 (Sixth Circuit, 1953)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
322 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp.
108 F.2d 594 (Second Circuit, 1939)
Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha
216 F. 848 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Reynolds v. Manhattan Trust Co.
109 F. 97 (Eighth Circuit, 1901)