James v. McCormack

Supreme Court

James v. McCormack

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

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 6, 1881·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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-.-

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

Pincite

105 U.S. 265 (James v. McCormack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related