Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland

Supreme Court

Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland

108 U.S. 5, 1 S. Ct. 17, 27 L. Ed. 630, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1271

DecidedNovember 6, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 108 U.S. 5 (Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland) 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

Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland, 108 U.S. 5, 1 S. Ct. 17, 27 L. Ed. 630, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1271 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

These axe writs of error to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and the motions to dismiss axe made because, as is. *6 claimed, no federal question is involved. The records have not been printed, and on these motions we can look only to the statements of counsel as they appear in the briefs. The assignment of errors has been printed,in the brief for the defendants, and the second and fifth assignments clearly present questions of which we have jurisdiction. Whether the errors thus assigned appear in the records we cannot on these motions, as they are now presented, finally determine, but in the absence of any showing to the contrary we will presume they do. The motions to dismiss must therefore be overruled.

The questions involved are not of a character that we are inclined to consider on a motion to afiirm, especially before the record is printed.

It will be time enough to consider the objections to the assignment of errors when the eases come on for hearing.

The motions to advance the cases cannot be granted upon the showing made.

Motions denied.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

These axe writs of error to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and the motions to dismiss axe made because, as is. *6 claimed, no federal question is involved. The records have not been printed, and on these motions we can look only to the statements of counsel as they appear in the briefs. The assignment of errors has been printed,in the brief for the defendants, and the second and fifth assignments clearly present questions of which we have jurisdiction. Whether the errors thus assigned appear in the records we cannot on these motions, as they are now presented, finally determine, but in the absence of any showing to the contrary we will presume they do. The motions to dismiss must therefore be overruled.

The questions involved are not of a character that we are inclined to consider on a motion to afiirm, especially before the record is printed.

It will be time enough to consider the objections to the assignment of errors when the eases come on for hearing.

The motions to advance the cases cannot be granted upon the showing made.

Motions denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 U.S. 5, 1 S. Ct. 17, 27 L. Ed. 630, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-iron-co-v-hoagland-scotus-1882.