James v. McCormack

Supreme Court

James v. McCormack

105 U.S. 265, 26 L. Ed. 1044, 15 Otto 265, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2119

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 6, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 U.S. 265 (James v. McCormack) 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

James v. McCormack, 105 U.S. 265, 26 L. Ed. 1044, 15 Otto 265, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2119 (1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

When the appellant was called and his appeal dismissed, the case had been nearly three years on the docket of this court. He had no brief on file, and was not present, either in person or by counsel. Under these circumstances the appellees were entitled, under Rule 16, to a dismissal. No notice of their in-' tention to enforce the rule was necessary. The appellant has not excused himself for his default, and his' case is clearly within that of Hurley v. Jones (97 U. S. 318), in which we announced our intention to enforce rigidly this salutary rule, and not to set aside defaults growing out of the neglect of counsel or parties, except for very good cause.

Motion 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.

When the appellant was called and his appeal dismissed, the case had been nearly three years on the docket of this court. He had no brief on file, and was not present, either in person or by counsel. Under these circumstances the appellees were entitled, under Rule 16, to a dismissal. No notice of their in-' tention to enforce the rule was necessary. The appellant has not excused himself for his default, and his' case is clearly within that of Hurley v. Jones (97 U. S. 318), in which we announced our intention to enforce rigidly this salutary rule, and not to set aside defaults growing out of the neglect of counsel or parties, except for very good cause.

Motion denied-.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 U.S. 265, 26 L. Ed. 1044, 15 Otto 265, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-mccormack-scotus-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack