Mayer v. Walsh

Supreme Court

Mayer v. Walsh

108 U.S. 17, 1 S. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 635, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1278

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 29, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 U.S. 17 (Mayer v. Walsh) 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

Mayer v. Walsh, 108 U.S. 17, 1 S. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 635, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1278 (1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a cross-appeal and the record has not been printed. As the case is here on the original appeal by the present appellee, we are not inclined to grant this motion in the abseiice of the printed record. . It appears from the motion papers that the present appellant pleaded prescription, and we infer that this plea was not sustained. By his other defences he defeated the claim in part. To review the decree so far as it is affected by these defences, the present appellee appealed. If, on that appeal; these defences are overruled, it may be important to the present appellant to insist on his defence of prescription against a claim that will then amount to more than five thousand dollars. Had not the other side appealed, the present appellant could not, because the decree against him is less than five thousand dollars. Under the circumstances, it may be that this appeal was well taken. Without, however, deciding that question, we postpone the further consideration of the motion until the hearing on the merits.

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.

This is a cross-appeal and the record has not been printed. As the case is here on the original appeal by the present appellee, we are not inclined to grant this motion in the abseiice of the printed record. . It appears from the motion papers that the present appellant pleaded prescription, and we infer that this plea was not sustained. By his other defences he defeated the claim in part. To review the decree so far as it is affected by these defences, the present appellee appealed. If, on that appeal; these defences are overruled, it may be important to the present appellant to insist on his defence of prescription against a claim that will then amount to more than five thousand dollars. Had not the other side appealed, the present appellant could not, because the decree against him is less than five thousand dollars. Under the circumstances, it may be that this appeal was well taken. Without, however, deciding that question, we postpone the further consideration of the motion until the hearing on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 U.S. 17, 1 S. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 635, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-walsh-scotus-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack