Roberts v. Bennett

135 F. 748, 68 C.C.A. 386, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedNovember 16, 1904
DocketNo. 95
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 F. 748 (Roberts v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roberts v. Bennett, 135 F. 748, 68 C.C.A. 386, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563 (2d Cir. 1904).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the bill of exceptions was not allowed and signed during the term in which the judgment was rendered, and no extension of time beyond the term had been given by the court or the consent of the parties, we think the delay was excused by the illness of the judge before whom the action was tried, and his consequent inability to settle the bill, and that the “extraordinary circumstances” withdraw the case from the operation of the general rule. Koewing v. Wilder, 126 Fed. 472, 61 C. C. A. 312.

The motion to set aside the bill of exceptions is denied.

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

Related

United States ex rel. Fehsenfeld v. Waddill
286 F. 908 (Fourth Circuit, 1923)
Farm Mortgage & Loan Co. v. Willett
285 F. 42 (W.D. New York, 1922)
Dalton v. Gunnison
165 F. 873 (Ninth Circuit, 1908)
Bidwell v. Amsinck
166 F. 752 (Second Circuit, 1908)
American Grass Twine Co. v. Choate
159 F. 429 (Seventh Circuit, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 F. 748, 68 C.C.A. 386, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-bennett-ca2-1904.