TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Porter v. Foley

James D. Porter Et Al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Bushrod W. Foley

Porter v. Foley, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 393 (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. 39316 L. Ed. 15421 How. 3931858 U.S. LEXIS 659
Headnotes
This'court has already decided at the present term (see page Í95 of this volume) that a writ of error made returnable on- the third Monday in January, and the defendant in error cited to appear on that day, is irregular, and must be dismissed. • A motion to remand the case to the,court below, with leave to amend the writ of • error and citation, cannot be granted. But if the plaintiff in error desires it, he may, in order to save expense, withdraw the transcript, and use it’ in connection with the proper and legal process to bring the case here.
Summary
This ease, was brought up from the Court of Appeals of Kentucky by a writ of error issued under tbe 25th section of the judiciary act. A motion was made to dismiss the writ, upon the ground 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.

The writ of error in this case was issued on the 27th day of December last, and made returnable on the third Monday in January, and the defendant in error cited to appear on that day.

Jt has already been decided at the present term, in the case .of Insurance Co. of the Valley of Virginia 'v.

Mordecai, that such a writ of error cannot be supported, and does not bring the case before the court.

A motion has been made, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, to remand the Case to the court below, with leave to amend the writ of error and citation. But, as the transcript stands, there is no cáse before us in which we can exercise a power of amendment. We-can do nothing more than dismiss it for . want of jurisdiction.

But if the plaintiff desires it, he may, in order to save expense, withdraw the transcript, and use it in connection with ■the proper and legal process to bring the case here; and if withdrawn, a receipt for it must be left with the clerk.

But as it now. stands, it must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

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

1869–1870: 11895–1896: 118692026peak 1869 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walton v. Marietta Chair Co.157 U.S. 342 (1895)
  2. Moulder v. Forrest154 U.S. 567 (1869)

Most recent

  1. Walton v. Marietta Chair Co.157 U.S. 342 (1895)
  2. Moulder v. Forrest154 U.S. 567 (1869)

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