R. L. Polk & Co. v. Smolik

D.C. Circuit

R. L. Polk & Co. v. Smolik

44 App. D.C. 55, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2674

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1915

DocketNo. 2801

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 App. D.C. 55 (R. L. Polk & Co. v. Smolik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. L. Polk & Co. v. Smolik, 44 App. D.C. 55, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2674 (D.C. Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Several terms of court had elapsed since the rendition of the original judgment of dismissal.

It was an error to grant the motion. “No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, that no court can reverse or annul its own final decrees or judgments for errors of fact or law after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes; * * * or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake.” Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488-492, 9 L. ed. 1167-1169; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665-674, 29 L. ed. 1013-1015, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 901; Karrick v. Wetmore, 25 App. D. C. 415-426; s. c. 205 U. S. 141-150, 51 L. ed. 745-748, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434.

It was error to grant the motion vacating the judgment after the lapse of the term, and the order to that effect is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded with direction to set aside the order vacating the former judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Several terms of court had elapsed since the rendition of the original judgment of dismissal.

It was an error to grant the motion. “No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, that no court can reverse or annul its own final decrees or judgments for errors of fact or law after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes; * * * or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake.” Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488-492, 9 L. ed. 1167-1169; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665-674, 29 L. ed. 1013-1015, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 901; Karrick v. Wetmore, 25 App. D. C. 415-426; s. c. 205 U. S. 141-150, 51 L. ed. 745-748, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434.

It was error to grant the motion vacating the judgment after the lapse of the term, and the order to that effect is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded with direction to set aside the order vacating the former judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 App. D.C. 55, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-l-polk-co-v-smolik-cadc-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack