Waterville v. Van Slyke

Supreme Court

Waterville v. Van Slyke

115 U.S. 290, 6 S. Ct. 39, 29 L. Ed. 406, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1839

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 2, 1885

Docket955

StatusPublished

This text of 115 U.S. 290 (Waterville v. Van Slyke) 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

Waterville v. Van Slyke, 115 U.S. 290, 6 S. Ct. 39, 29 L. Ed. 406, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1839 (1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment in this case is for less than five thousand dollars, but the record contains a certificate of division. The'motion to dismiss is “ on the ground, that this court lias no jurisdiction upon such a certificate as is filed herein.” The record has not been printed, and in National Bank v. Insurance Co., 100 U. S. 43, we announced the rule that to get a decision on a motion to dismiss before printing, the motion, papers must present the case in a way which will enable us to act undprstandingly without referring to the transcript on file. In this case we have not been furnished either with a copy of the certificate on which the motion depends or with an agreed statement of what it contains. In fact, there is nothing on which we can act unless we go to the transcript.

The further consideration of the motion is consequently postponed until the case is for hearing on its merits.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment in this case is for less than five thousand dollars, but the record contains a certificate of division. The'motion to dismiss is “ on the ground, that this court lias no jurisdiction upon such a certificate as is filed herein.” The record has not been printed, and in National Bank v. Insurance Co., 100 U. S. 43, we announced the rule that to get a decision on a motion to dismiss before printing, the motion, papers must present the case in a way which will enable us to act undprstandingly without referring to the transcript on file. In this case we have not been furnished either with a copy of the certificate on which the motion depends or with an agreed statement of what it contains. In fact, there is nothing on which we can act unless we go to the transcript.

The further consideration of the motion is consequently postponed until the case is for hearing on its merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 U.S. 290, 6 S. Ct. 39, 29 L. Ed. 406, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterville-v-van-slyke-scotus-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack