Railroad Co. v. Bradleys
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mahan v. Sparks (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1942)
- United States v. Steinberg (2d Cir. 1938)
- Burnet v. Lexington Ice & Coal Co. (4th Cir. 1933)
- Northwestern Public Service Co. v. Pfeifer (8th Cir. 1929)
- Rector v. United States (8th Cir. 1927)
- Sanborn v. Bay (8th Cir. 1911)
- Blaffer v. New Orleans Water Supply Co. (5th Cir. 1908)
- East Coast Cedar Co. v. People's Bank of Buffalo (4th Cir. 1901)
- Norton v. Hood (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana 1882)
- Sage v. Central Rr Co. of Iowa (Supreme Court of the United States 1876)
- Southern Pac. Co. v. Sartoris (9th Cir. 1928)
- Morse v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)
- Stearns & White Co. v. Lee (7th Cir. 1924)
- Solomon v. United States (1st Cir. 1923)
- Greenberg v. Lesamis (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1914)
- Sacramento Valley Irrigation Co. v. Lee (N.M. 1910)
- Roller v. Clarke (D.C. Cir. 1902)
- Watson v. Mayberry (Utah 1897)
- Whitaker v. Sparkman (Fla. 1892)
- First National Bank v. McAndrews (Mont. 1888)
- Brown v. Evans (United States Circuit Courts 1883)
- B. & O. R. R. v. Vanderwarker (W. Va. 1882)
- The Steamboat Zephyr v. Brown (Washington Territory 1880)
- Ex Parte Cutting (Supreme Court of the United States 1877)
- Kitchen v. Randolph (Supreme Court of the United States 1876)
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.
We think that the decree entered on the 6th of February, 1869,- was a final decree within the principles of the case of Thomson v. Dean, * decided at this term, though it iqight have been otherwise had the decree been limited to the dissolution of the injunction, thereby merely permitting the truste.es to sell under their trust.
The first ground of the motion to dismiss, therefore, can- . not be sustained.
Nor is the second ground more. tenable. It is true that it does not appear upon- the record directly that" there was an allowance of the appeal; but an appeal was prayed, and subsequently the appeal bond was filed ,in the court, ahd- approved by one of the judges; and, we think, it .may be properly- inferred, from' these facts, that an appeal was actually allowed. , The motion to dismiss, therefore, must be denied.
In support of the motion for supersedeas, it was argued that the appeal bond was approve^, and filed within ten days after the decree.
The decree was entered on the 6th of February, 1869. A petition for..the suspension of .the order of dissolution was filed, by the secretary of the complainants, on the same day; a niotion to. the same effect was made in behalf of the Department-of War, on the 15th of February; and a petition to open the decree was filed on the 18th of February, by one of the stockholders of the company.
We do not think it necessary to consider the effect vof either of these proceedings; for, on the 6th'of March, and, as we understand, during the term at which the decree was *578 rendered, a motion to rescind was made in behalf of the •complainants, and was heard and decided.
There is no-doubt that, during the term, the decree was, at all times, subject to be- rescinded or modified, upon motion, and could, not, therefore, be regarded as-absolutely final, until the end of the term. It became final, in this case, when the motion to. rescind had been heard and denied. This took place on the 13th of March, and, on the 20th, the appeal was prayed in open court, and on the 23d the bond of appeal was approved and filed.
We think this was in time, and the motion for supersedeas must, therefore, be allowed. *
Orders accordingly
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.