TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Schlosser Leather Co. v. Gillespie

Schlosser Leather Co. v. John C. Gillespie.[]

Schlosser Leather Co. v. Gillespie, 6 S.W.2d 328 (Tenn. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Tennessee Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 28, 1928
Judges
Green
Citations
6 S.W.2d 328157 Tenn. 1664 Smith & H. 1661927 Tenn. LEXIS 60

Opinion of the Court — Green

Mr. Chief Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court.

An application for an extension of time in which to file a petition for certiorari to review the action of the Court of Appeals herein is presented to the Court. This *167 application comes more than forty-five days after the decree of the Conrt of Appeals and we are without power to entertain it.

Section 14 of Chapter 100 of the Acts of 1925, provides that:

“Petitions for certiorari to require the removal of any case from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court for review, shall he filed in the Supreme Court within forty-five days after final decree in the Court of Appeals, including decree upon any application to that court for ■a rehearing or for different or additional findings; provided, the Supreme Court or any of the Judges thereof, upon application, may extend such time for filing petitions for certiorari for an additional time not to exceed ninety days after final decree as above defined in the Court of Appeals.”

It will be noted that this Court or any of the Judges thereof are given authority upon application to extend such time (forty-five days) for filing petition for cer-tiorari.

T'o extend means to stretch out or to draw out or to enlarge a thing. It implies something in existence. Extend is a transitive verb, requiring an object. The object of the extension in the statute is the forty-five days. The forty-five days having elapsed, there is nothing to extend, no period to prolong.

To grant time, in which to file petition for certiorari, after the expiration of the original term, is a power not given to this Court.

The application is accordingly denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1929: 11934: 11944: 11948: 11953: 11963: 11966: 11973: 11978: 11986: 11990: 22007: 12019: 119292026peak 1990 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Blair v. Tennessee Board of Probation & Parole246 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)
  2. First State Bank v. Stacey259 S.W.2d 863 (Tenn. 1953)
  3. Roland Digital Media, Inc. v. City of LivingstonNo. M2018-00163-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2019)
  4. State v. Graves182 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. 1944)
  5. Mathieson v. Hubler588 P.2d 1056 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978)
  6. Rodda v. Rodda202 P.2d 638 (Or. 1948)

Most recent

  1. Roland Digital Media, Inc. v. City of LivingstonNo. M2018-00163-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2019)
  2. Blair v. Tennessee Board of Probation & Parole246 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)
  3. Read v. Miller802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990)
  4. Read v. Miller788 P.2d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990)
  5. Monihon v. Monihon492 So. 2d 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) · Dissent
  6. Mathieson v. Hubler588 P.2d 1056 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list