TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holliday v. Batson

Robert Holliday Et Al. v. Joseph N. Batson Et Al.

Holliday v. Batson, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 645 (1846)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 19, 1846
Citations
45 U.S. 64511 L. Ed. 11404 How. 6451846 U.S. LEXIS 419
Summary
“ Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, United States, 5th Circuit, and Eastern District of Louisiana. “Robert Holliday et al. v. Joseph N* Batson et al. [seal.]' DUNCAN N. HENNEN, Clerk.” Per Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.

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

Opinion

In order to entitle a party to have a case docketed and dismissed, under the forty-third rule of court, the certificate of- the clerk of the court below must set forth an accurate titling of the case.

Mr. Barton having filed and read in open court a certificate in writing, in the following words and figures, to wit: — “ In the above-entitled cause, I certify that a final judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court of the United States for the 9th (now 5th) Circuit and Eastern District of Louisiana, on the twentieth day of January, eighteen hundred and forty-one, and' that a writ of error was taken by the defendants, returnable to the January term, 1842, of the Supreme Court of the United States, “ Witness mv hand, and the seal of said court, at New Orleans, this 4th Eebruary, 1845.

and moved the court .to docket and dismiss the -said writ of -error, under the forty-third rule of court. It is thereupon now. here considered and ordered by the court, that the said motion be, and the same is, hereby overruled, the titling of the case in the said certificate being too vague and uncertain.

The above motion was made and overruled at the preceding *646 term. At the present term, a certificate was filed, with a proper titling, and, on motion of Mr. Eustis, the case was docketed and dismissed. •

How later courts describe this case

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

1852–1853: 11882–1883: 11886–1887: 11898–1899: 11916–1917: 11938–1939: 118522026peak 1852 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield40 Fla. 36 (1898)
  2. Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.230 F. 438 (6th Cir. 1916)
  3. Smith v. Clark53 U.S. (12 How.) 21 (1852)
  4. Batter v. Commissioner37 B.T.A. 667 (B.T.A. 1938)
  5. The City of Lincoln19 F. 460 (1883)
  6. Van Horn v. The Natchez27 F. 309 (1886)

Most recent

  1. Batter v. Commissioner37 B.T.A. 667 (B.T.A. 1938)
  2. Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.230 F. 438 (6th Cir. 1916)
  3. State ex rel. Andreu v. Canfield40 Fla. 36 (1898)
  4. Van Horn v. The Natchez27 F. 309 (1886)
  5. The City of Lincoln19 F. 460 (1883)
  6. Smith v. Clark53 U.S. (12 How.) 21 (1852)

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