Railroad Co. v. Harris

74 U.S. 574, 19 L. Ed. 100, 7 Wall. 574, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1038
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 18, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 74 U.S. 574 (Railroad Co. v. Harris) 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
Railroad Co. v. Harris, 74 U.S. 574, 19 L. Ed. 100, 7 Wall. 574, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1038 (1869).

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

The right of the plaintiff in órror to the writs for which *575 the motion now before us is made, depends on the question whether, by the proceedings taken in the case, the writ of ■ error upon the first judgment became a supersedeas?

And this question is answered by the express words of the twenty-third section of the Judiciary Act.

The legislature has seen fit to make the lodging of a -copy of the writ, within ten days, a prerequisite to the operation of the writ as a supersedeas. The cause was removed from the inferior court to this court, by the issuing of the writ; and the due service of it upon the court to which it is addressed; but its additional effect, as a supersedeas,, depends upon compliance with the conditions imposed by the .act. We cannot dispense with that compliance in respect' to lodging a copy for the adverse, party.

The motion for writs of supersedeas in both cases, must,'' therefore, be denied;,and as the second writ of error brings nothing before us, unless the writ in the first'case operated-as a supersedeas under the statute, that writ must be .

Dismissed.

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

Related

Morrison v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
166 P. 1122 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
Greenberg v. Lesamis
5 Alaska 158 (D. Alaska, 1914)
Odbert v. Marquet
175 F. 44 (Fourth Circuit, 1909)
Reed v. Munn
148 F. 737 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Perez y Fernandez v. Fernandez Y Perez
1 P.R. Fed. 148 (D. Puerto Rico, 1902)
New England R. v. Hyde
101 F. 397 (First Circuit, 1900)
Brown v. Evans
18 F. 56 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1883)
Crowder v. Morgan
72 Ala. 535 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 U.S. 574, 19 L. Ed. 100, 7 Wall. 574, 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/railroad-co-v-harris-scotus-1869.