TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ballance v. Forsyth

Charles Ballance, Appellant, v. Robert Forsyth, Luciene Dumain, and Antoine R. Bouis

Ballance v. Forsyth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 389 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 21, 1859
Judges
Taney
Citations
62 U.S. 38916 L. Ed. 14321 How. 3891858 U.S. LEXIS 656
Headnotes
The cpurt again decides that consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this court where the law does not give it; .but leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript, and use it so as to bring his ease legally before this court.
Summary
‘This was an appeal from the .Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. It was dismissed, and a motion made to reinstate it, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the. court.

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

Opinion — Taney

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was dismissed on the 20th. of December last, because it did not appear that an appeal had been taken in the District Court. A motion ■ has now béen made to reinstate the. case, and, in support of that motion, a written agreement, signed by the counsel for the appellant and appellee, has been filed, consenting to reinstate the case, to waive all irregularities,- and to try the case on the merits.

But the consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this *390 court, where the law does not give it. And, without an appeal taken in the District Court, this court has no jurisdiction, and the consent of parties cannot cure the defect. The motion is therefore overruled:

But if the plaintiff in error desires to supply the omission, and take an appeal in the District Court, and bring his case legally before us, he has leave, in order to save expense, to withdraw the transcript now filed, and to use it upon his appeal, leaving a receipt for it with the clerk of this court.' ■

How later courts describe this case

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

1885–1886: 11891–1892: 11893–1894: 11897–1898: 11901–1902: 11905–1906: 21907–1908: 218852026peak 1905 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v. Strickley116 F. 852 (8th Cir. 1902)
  2. Clark v. Doerr143 F. 960 (5th Cir. 1906)
  3. Thomson v. Travelers' Ins. Co.161 F. 867 (9th Cir. 1908)
  4. Stevens v. Clark62 F. 321 (7th Cir. 1894)
  5. State v. Mitchell29 Fla. 302 (1892)
  6. Dodd v. Una40 N.J. Eq. 672 (1885)

Most recent

  1. Thomson v. Travelers' Ins. Co.161 F. 867 (9th Cir. 1908)
  2. Property Owners' League v. City of San Juan14 P.R. 85 (1908)
  3. Clark v. Doerr143 F. 960 (5th Cir. 1906)
  4. Giménez v. Brenes10 P.R. 124 (1906) · Dissent
  5. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v. Strickley116 F. 852 (8th Cir. 1902)
  6. City of Wilmington v. Ricaud90 F. 212 (4th Cir. 1898)

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