Fayolle v. Texas & Pacific Railroad

Supreme Court

Fayolle v. Texas & Pacific Railroad

124 U.S. 519, 8 S. Ct. 588, 31 L. Ed. 533, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1890

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 6, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 U.S. 519 (Fayolle v. Texas & Pacific Railroad) 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

Fayolle v. Texas & Pacific Railroad, 124 U.S. 519, 8 S. Ct. 588, 31 L. Ed. 533, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1890 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is granted. The decree was rendered November 12, 1883. An appeal was taken at the same time in open court returnable to our October Term, 1884, which ended May 4, 1885, but it was not docketed here until January 17, 1888. That was too late, as the appeal. had become inoperative through the failure of the' appellants to docket the case here at the return term. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505, and cases there cited; Killian v. Clark, 111 U. S. 784; Caillot v. Deetken, 113 U. S. 215. The excuse presented for the failure to docket in tirqe is not sufficient to give the appellants the benefit of any exception to this rule which was recognized in Grigsby v. Purcell, p. 507. Neither does the case come within that of Edwards v. United States, 102 U. S. 575, because the transcript of the record was not lodged in the office of the clerk of this Court until after the return term of the appeal, and no attempt was made to get it upon the docket until another term had passed and still another had begun.

Dismissed.

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.

This motion is granted. The decree was rendered November 12, 1883. An appeal was taken at the same time in open court returnable to our October Term, 1884, which ended May 4, 1885, but it was not docketed here until January 17, 1888. That was too late, as the appeal. had become inoperative through the failure of the' appellants to docket the case here at the return term. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505, and cases there cited; Killian v. Clark, 111 U. S. 784; Caillot v. Deetken, 113 U. S. 215. The excuse presented for the failure to docket in tirqe is not sufficient to give the appellants the benefit of any exception to this rule which was recognized in Grigsby v. Purcell, p. 507. Neither does the case come within that of Edwards v. United States, 102 U. S. 575, because the transcript of the record was not lodged in the office of the clerk of this Court until after the return term of the appeal, and no attempt was made to get it upon the docket until another term had passed and still another had begun.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 U.S. 519, 8 S. Ct. 588, 31 L. Ed. 533, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fayolle-v-texas-pacific-railroad-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack