Schenck v. Diamond Match Co.

Third Circuit

Schenck v. Diamond Match Co.

73 F. 22, 19 C.C.A. 352, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1773

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 F. 22 (Schenck v. Diamond Match Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schenck v. Diamond Match Co., 73 F. 22, 19 C.C.A. 352, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1773 (3d Cir. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

The certificate before us shows that within 30 days after the entry of the decree granting an injunction, [23]*23namely, on February 4, 1896, the appeal was applied for in the court below, and was allowed; and that on March 3, 1896, the bond for costs was approved by the court. It has been held by the supreme court that the omission to give a bond for costs at the time the appeal is taken does not necessarily avoid the appeal, and that the appellant may be allowed to file the bond afterwards, within a reasonable time. Anson v. Railroad Co., 23 How. 1; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447, 454; Seymour v. Freed, 5 Wall. 822. These delusions, we think, justify us in overruling' the motion to dismiss the appeal here. We are the more inclined to deny the motion because it is not apparent to us that the appellee has been prejudiced in any respect by the delay in filing the bond. Motion denied.

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

ACHESON, Circuit Judge.

The certificate before us shows that within 30 days after the entry of the decree granting an injunction, [23]*23namely, on February 4, 1896, the appeal was applied for in the court below, and was allowed; and that on March 3, 1896, the bond for costs was approved by the court. It has been held by the supreme court that the omission to give a bond for costs at the time the appeal is taken does not necessarily avoid the appeal, and that the appellant may be allowed to file the bond afterwards, within a reasonable time. Anson v. Railroad Co., 23 How. 1; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447, 454; Seymour v. Freed, 5 Wall. 822. These delusions, we think, justify us in overruling' the motion to dismiss the appeal here. We are the more inclined to deny the motion because it is not apparent to us that the appellee has been prejudiced in any respect by the delay in filing the bond. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F. 22, 19 C.C.A. 352, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 1773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenck-v-diamond-match-co-ca3-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack