Roemer v. Simon

91 U.S. 149, 23 L. Ed. 267, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1345
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 18, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by48 cases

This text of 91 U.S. 149 (Roemer v. Simon) 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
Roemer v. Simon, 91 U.S. 149, 23 L. Ed. 267, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1345 (1875).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court. i

It is clear, that, after an appeal in equity to this court, we cannot, upon motion, set aside a decree of the court below, and grant a rehearing. ' We can only affirm, reverse, or modify the ■decree appealed from, and that upon the hearing of the cause. No new evidence can be received here. Rév. Stat. sect. 698. The court below cannot grant a rehearing'after .the term at which the final decree was rendered. Equity Rule, 88. It would be useless to remand this cause, theféfore, as the term at which the decree was rendered has passed. If the term still continued, the proper practice would be to make application to the court below for a rehearing, and have that court send to us a request for a return of the record,' in order that it- : might proceed further with the cause. Should such á request' be made, we might, in a proper case and under proper restrictions, make the necessary order; but we cannot make such .an order on the application of the parties. The court below alone can make the request of us. The application of the parties must be addressed to that court, and not to us.

Motion denied.

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

Related

Application of Raymond P. Fischer
360 F.2d 230 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1966)
Star Publishing Co. v. Martin
95 A.2d 465 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1953)
Star Pub. Co. v. Martin
95 A.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1953)
Switzer v. Marzall
96 F. Supp. 332 (District of Columbia, 1951)
Wood v. Porter
157 F.2d 672 (Eighth Circuit, 1946)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
322 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1944)
United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co.
123 F.2d 453 (First Circuit, 1941)
Hall v. United States
78 F.2d 168 (Tenth Circuit, 1935)
In re Robertshaw
75 F.2d 203 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1935)
Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Buck
65 F.2d 735 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)
Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Stankus
63 F.2d 887 (Third Circuit, 1933)
Motorfrigerator Co. v. Frigidaire Sales Corp.
59 F.2d 622 (Fourth Circuit, 1932)
Realty Acceptance Corp. v. Montgomery
284 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co.
284 U.S. 448 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Jensen v. New York Life Ins. Co.
50 F.2d 512 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)
Bailey v. Crump
41 F.2d 733 (Fourth Circuit, 1930)
Brick v. A. I. Namm & Sons, Inc.
21 F.2d 179 (E.D. New York, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 U.S. 149, 23 L. Ed. 267, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roemer-v-simon-scotus-1875.