Supreme Court of the United States, 1855

Peck v. Sanderson

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 18, 1855 · McLEAN

59 U.S. 42; 15 L. Ed. 262; 18 How. 42; 1855 U.S. LEXIS 657 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Rush, of counsel for the appellee,

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Sun Oil Co. v. Burford (5th Cir. 1942)
Carter Oil Co. v. Eli (Okla. 1932)
Egbert v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. (Okla. 1915)
Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha (8th Cir. 1914)
Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
Illinois v. Illinois Central Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
Empire Mining Co. v. Propeller Towboat Co. (S.C. 1901)
McClaskey v. Barr (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio 1893)
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Ellis (Supreme Court of the United States 1892)
Northern Pacific Railroad v. Ellis (Supreme Court of the United States 1892)
J. M. W. Jones Stationery & Paper Co. v. Hentig (Kan. 1884)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice McLEAN

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by Mr. Rush, counsel for the appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was "prevented by sickness from attending the court at the time of the hearing.

It is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a failure in the mail, was unknown to the court.

In the above case, the' brief of the counsel was before the. court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have changed the result.

But in the case of Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, it was held that this court cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted .to the court below; and in the case of the Washington Bridge Company v. Stewart, et al. 3 How. 413, the same principle was recognized. The motion is overruled.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.