Jourolman v. East Tennessee Land Co.

Sixth Circuit

Jourolman v. East Tennessee Land Co.

85 F. 251, 29 C.C.A. 140, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2155

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 1898

DocketNo. 381

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 85 F. 251 (Jourolman v. East Tennessee Land Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jourolman v. East Tennessee Land Co., 85 F. 251, 29 C.C.A. 140, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2155 (6th Cir. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

SEVERENS, District Judge.

In this case the final decree of this court, reversing that, of the court below, was entered May 10, 1897. 26 C. C. A. 23, 80 Fed. 604. The petition for rehearing was denied July 6, 1897. The decree at the circuit was entered on the mandate oil August 2d following. By the decree of this court the reversal was in terms with costs, without more, and this was the form of the mandate. This left the question of the costs in live court below subject to the power of that court. Costs were not here decreed to the complainants. Motion is now made in this court for an order modifying the decree and mandate so as to award the costs in the court below to the complainants. The motion must be denied. The term at which, the decree here was entered liad expired before the entry of this motion, and the control of the court over it had terminated. If the complainants conceived that the decree was not such as they were entitled to, it was their privilege to make seasonable application for such modification as would remedy the supposed defect. Not having availed themselves of this right, and having suffered the term to lapse, they have now no standing for the present application.

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

SEVERENS, District Judge.

In this case the final decree of this court, reversing that, of the court below, was entered May 10, 1897. 26 C. C. A. 23, 80 Fed. 604. The petition for rehearing was denied July 6, 1897. The decree at the circuit was entered on the mandate oil August 2d following. By the decree of this court the reversal was in terms with costs, without more, and this was the form of the mandate. This left the question of the costs in live court below subject to the power of that court. Costs were not here decreed to the complainants. Motion is now made in this court for an order modifying the decree and mandate so as to award the costs in the court below to the complainants. The motion must be denied. The term at which, the decree here was entered liad expired before the entry of this motion, and the control of the court over it had terminated. If the complainants conceived that the decree was not such as they were entitled to, it was their privilege to make seasonable application for such modification as would remedy the supposed defect. Not having availed themselves of this right, and having suffered the term to lapse, they have now no standing for the present application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F. 251, 29 C.C.A. 140, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jourolman-v-east-tennessee-land-co-ca6-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack