Connor v. Peugh's Lessee
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. McFaddin Express, Inc. (2d Cir. 1962)
- Union Provision & Distributing Corp. v. Fisher (D.C. 1946)
- Mohonk Realty Corporation v. Wise Shoe Stores (2d Cir. 1940)
- Antonio Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, and Third-Party v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc., Third-Party (2d Cir. 1962)
- Ray v. Bruce (D.C. 1943)
- Bensen v. United States (9th Cir. 1937)
- State of Washington v. United States (9th Cir. 1936)
- In re 211 East Delaware Place Bldg. Corp. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1936)
- State v. United States (9th Cir. 1936)
- Republic Supply Co. v. Richfield Oil Co. (9th Cir. 1935)
- Lupfer v. Carlton (5th Cir. 1933)
- Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Meyerson (2d Cir. 1931)
- Smith v. United States ex rel. Gorlo (7th Cir. 1931)
- North Carolina v. Southern Ry. Co. (4th Cir. 1929)
- Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayette Southside Bank of St. Louis (4th Cir. 1928)
- Willis v. Davis (6th Cir. 1911)
- Hendryx v. Perkins (1st Cir. 1902)
- Credits Commutation Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
- Stroheim v. Deimel (7th Cir. 1897)
- Van Camp v. Board of Commissioners (Idaho 1884)
- Phillips v. Negley (D.C. 1883)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error in this case. It is an action of ejectnient brought in the circuit court of this district in the usual form, by serving a declaration on the tenant in possession with notice. The declaration and notice were served by the marshal, more, than ten days before March term, 1854. The tenant did not appear and have herself made defendant in place of the casual ejector, according to the exigency of the notice; and at October term a judgment was entered against the casual ejector, in the usual and proper form. On the 5th of June, 1855, the tenant in possession came into court for the first time, and moved to set aside the judgment and execution issued thereon, and to be allowed to defend the suit, for reasons set forth in her affidavit. The court, refused to grant this motion, “ whereupon the said Mary Ann Connor prayed an appeal,” &c. ' .
The tenant in possession having neglected to appear and have herself made defendant, and confess lease, entry, and ouster, the judgment was properly entered against the casual ejector. No one but a party to the suit can bring a writ of error. The tenant having neglected to have herself made such, cannot have a writ of error to the judgment against the casual ejector.
The motion afterwards)made to have the judgment set aside, and for leave to intervene, was an application to the sound discretion of the court. To the action of the court on such a motion no appeal lies, nor is it the subject of a bill of exceptions or writ of error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.