TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wood v. Lide

Wood v. Lide, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 180 (1807)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 19, 1807
Citations
8 U.S. 1802 L. Ed. 5884 Cranch 1801807 U.S. LEXIS 379
Headnotes
Practice in error. If a writ of error be served before the return-day, it may be returned after, even at a subsequent term; and the appearance of the defendant in error waives all objection to the irregularity of the return. iThe service of a writ of error is the lodging a copy thereof for the adverse party, in the office of the court where the judgment was rendered.
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia. The writ of ■error was dated the 23d of December 1805, and returnable to February term 1806 ; the citation also bore the same date, and commanded the defendant in error to appear at the same term. The writ of error was filed in the clerk’s office of the court below on the same 23d of December. The judgment below was not signed, until the 4th day of January 1806. The writ of error was not returned and filed in the clerk’s office of the supreme court, until the 18th of March 1806, after the court had closed its session.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion

The Chief Justice stated, that there had been some difference of opinion among the judges, which arose from their not understanding perfectly the facts of the case. If the writ of error had been served, when it was not in force (that is, after its return-day), such service would have been void. But if served, while in force, a return afterwards will be good. The service of a writ of error is the lodging a copy thereof for the adverse party, in the office of the clerk of the court where the judgment was rendered. (1 U. S. Stat. 86, § 23.) If it be so served, before the return-day, the service is good.

In the case cited from 4 Dall., it does not appear which party made the motion, nor whether there was an appearance for the opposite party. In the present case, the writ of error having been served, when in full force, and the writ of error returned, although not at the first term, the appearance of the defendant in error has waived all objection to the irregularity of the return.

The judgment was affirmed, (a)

(a)

No notice was taken of the fact that the writ of error was served, before the judgment below was signed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1817–1818: 11819–1820: 11839–1840: 11851–1852: 11859–1860: 11875–1876: 11879–1880: 12019–2020: 12023–2024: 118172026peak 1817 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Grigsby v. Purcell99 U.S. 505 (1879)
  2. Alanson Saltmarsh v. James W. Tuthill53 U.S. (12 How.) 387 (1852)
  3. The Insurance Company of the Valley of Virginia, in Error v. Moses C. Mordecai62 U.S. (21 How.) 195 (1859)
  4. Mills v. Conner1 Blackf. 5 (1817)
  5. State v. Kennedy18 N.J.L. 22 (1840)
  6. Jimmy Lee Lanier v. United StatesNo. 18-10382 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2019)

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