Connor v. Peugh's Lessee

59 U.S. 394, 15 L. Ed. 432, 18 How. 394, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 708
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 10, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 59 U.S. 394 (Connor v. Peugh's Lessee) 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
Connor v. Peugh's Lessee, 59 U.S. 394, 15 L. Ed. 432, 18 How. 394, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 708 (1856).

Opinion

Mr. Justice GRIER,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error in this case. It is an action of ejectnient brought in the circuit court of this district in the usual form, by serving a declaration on the tenant in possession with notice. The declaration and notice were served by the marshal, more, than ten days before March term, 1854. The tenant did not appear and have herself made defendant in place of the casual ejector, according to the exigency of the notice; and at October term a judgment was entered against the casual ejector, in the usual and proper form. On the 5th of June, 1855, the tenant in possession came into court for the first time, and moved to set aside the judgment and execution issued thereon, and to be allowed to defend the suit, for reasons set forth in her affidavit. The court, refused to grant this motion, “ whereupon the said Mary Ann Connor prayed an appeal,” &c. ' .

The tenant in possession having neglected to appear and have herself made defendant, and confess lease, entry, and ouster, the judgment was properly entered against the casual ejector. No one but a party to the suit can bring a writ of error. The tenant having neglected to have herself made such, cannot have a writ of error to the judgment against the casual ejector.

The motion afterwards)made to have the judgment set aside, and for leave to intervene, was an application to the sound discretion of the court. To the action of the court on such a motion no appeal lies, nor is it the subject of a bill of exceptions or writ of error.

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Related

United States v. McFaddin Express, Inc.
310 F.2d 799 (Second Circuit, 1962)
Union Provision & Distributing Corp. v. Fisher
49 A.2d 85 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1946)
Ray v. Bruce
31 A.2d 693 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1943)
Mohonk Realty Corporation v. Wise Shoe Stores
111 F.2d 287 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Bensen v. United States
93 F.2d 749 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
State of Washington v. United States
87 F.2d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
State v. United States
87 F.2d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
In re 211 East Delaware Place Bldg. Corp.
15 F. Supp. 947 (N.D. Illinois, 1936)
Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co.
74 F.2d 909 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)
Lupfer v. Carlton
64 F.2d 272 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
Smith v. United States ex rel. Gorlo
52 F.2d 848 (Seventh Circuit, 1931)
Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Meyerson
49 F.2d 765 (Second Circuit, 1931)
North Carolina v. Southern Ry. Co.
30 F.2d 204 (Fourth Circuit, 1929)
Willis v. Davis
184 F. 889 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)
Parish v. Hedges
34 App. D.C. 21 (D.C. Circuit, 1909)
Hendryx v. Perkins
114 F. 801 (First Circuit, 1902)
Credits Commutation Co. v. United States
177 U.S. 311 (Supreme Court, 1900)
Stroheim v. Deimel
77 F. 802 (Seventh Circuit, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 U.S. 394, 15 L. Ed. 432, 18 How. 394, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connor-v-peughs-lessee-scotus-1856.