Legg v. Overbagh

4 Wend. 188
CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
DecidedApril 15, 1830
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 4 Wend. 188 (Legg v. Overbagh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Legg v. Overbagh, 4 Wend. 188 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1830).

Opinions

On the next day the following opinions were delivered:

By Chief Justice Savage.

When a remittitur has regularly issued, and the proceedings have been sent down to the court below, this court has no longer any control over the cause; the court below has become re-possessed of it, and the jurisdiction of this court over it has ceased. It is otherwise when the remittitur has issued irregularly. When issued irregularly, in contemplation of law, the proceedings remain here, and the order or decree made will of cohrSe be superseded; the remittitur issued not being considered the act of the court. Here, however, it was the act of the court. The appellants not having appeared to argue, the decree appealed from was affirmed in pursuance of the rules of the court, and the remittitur regularly issued. If, under these circumstances, this cause can be re-called, then a cause which has been remitted to the court below may be reinstated in this court after argument and decision, which it is presumed will not be pretended. The proceedings brought up by the appeal have been remitted to the court of chancery, and remain in that court; they are no longer here, and it is not competent to this court to make any order on the subject. There is nothing in the objection that the remittitur ir[191]*191regularly issued ; the costs of affirmance need not be inserted in the remittitur previous to its being sent down. The absence of the appellants is satisfactorily accounted for, and had the court the power, the motion ought to be granted; but they no longer possess jurisdiction of the cause, and cannot make any order respecting it.

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

Related

Maloney v. Zipf
237 P. 632 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Ott v. Boring
110 N.W. 824 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Jones
47 S.E. 320 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Merchants' National Bank v. Grunthal
39 Fla. 388 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1897)
Town of Underhill v. Town of Jericho
66 Vt. 183 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1893)
Lovett v. State
29 Fla. 384 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1892)
Hurd v. McClellan
13 Colo. 7 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1889)
State v. Jacobs
11 Or. 314 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1884)
Putnam v. Clark
35 N.J. Eq. 145 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1882)
Trowbridge v. Sickler
4 N.W. 563 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1880)
Cushman v. Hadfield
15 Abb. Pr. 109 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)
King v. Ruckman
22 N.J. Eq. 551 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1871)
Hopkins v. Gilman
23 Wis. 512 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1868)
Fry v. Bennett
1 Abb. Pr. 289 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1855)
Union India Rubber Co. v. Babcock
1 Abb. Pr. 262 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1854)
Delaplaine v. Bergen
7 Hill & Den. 591 (New York Supreme Court, 1844)
Ferguson v. Huston
6 Mo. 407 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1840)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Wend. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/legg-v-overbagh-nycterr-1830.