Mayer v. Hickey

Fifth Circuit

Mayer v. Hickey

67 F.2d 489, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4520

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 1933

DocketNo. 7196

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 F.2d 489 (Mayer v. Hickey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayer v. Hickey, 67 F.2d 489, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4520 (5th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal unconditionally allowed on November 35, 1933, was not void because no cost bond was fixed or given. The supersedeas bond was refused approval and the supersedeas failed. The District Court, however, could not at a subsequent term dismiss the appeal by vacating its order of allowance thereof. But no record has been filed here, though the time therefor has long since elapsed. The alleged refusal of the clerk to deliver it is not a good excuse, because steps might have been taken to compel him. It appears that the appellant has under sanction of the District Court recognized the decree appealed from and given security for its payment and obtained time for six months in which to pay it. We do not think this belated attempt to perfect the appeal merits a waiver by this court of its rule touching the time for filing the record on appeal.

The motions of the appellant are denied, and that of the appellees to dismiss the appeal is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal unconditionally allowed on November 35, 1933, was not void because no cost bond was fixed or given. The supersedeas bond was refused approval and the supersedeas failed. The District Court, however, could not at a subsequent term dismiss the appeal by vacating its order of allowance thereof. But no record has been filed here, though the time therefor has long since elapsed. The alleged refusal of the clerk to deliver it is not a good excuse, because steps might have been taken to compel him. It appears that the appellant has under sanction of the District Court recognized the decree appealed from and given security for its payment and obtained time for six months in which to pay it. We do not think this belated attempt to perfect the appeal merits a waiver by this court of its rule touching the time for filing the record on appeal.

The motions of the appellant are denied, and that of the appellees to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F.2d 489, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-hickey-ca5-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack