Railroad Co. v. Bradleys

1. A decree ordering an injunction, previously granted to restrain a said under a deed of trust, to be dissolved, and directing a sale according to the deed of trust, and the bringing of the proceeds into court, beld. to be a final decree. 2. An actual allowance of an appeal may be inferred where .the record shows that an appeal was prayed for in open court, and an appeal bond filed and approved by one of the judges.' 3. A supersedeas granted, the record showing that a decree dissolving an injunction was made on the 6th of February, a petition for the suspension of the order filed by one party on the1 same day, by another on the 15th, a petition to open the decree on the 13th; a motion to rescind, made on the 6th March, during the term at which the decree was rendered, which'motion was heard and denied on the 13th, with an appeal prayed in open court on the 20th, and an appeal bond filed on the 23d.',

Motions to dismiss and for supersedeas, pn an appeal from ■ tbo Supreme Court-of the District of Columbia. ■ The case-was thus: The Washington, Georgetown, and-Alexandria Railroad Company had filed, in 1863, a bill' to enjoin the City ¿f Washington and 7. and A. Bradley, trustees, from making sale of certain property conveyed by the company in mortgage to the said Bradleys as trustees, and-UDder .which the Bradleys were about to sell the property to pay the mortgage debt. An injunction was accordingly granted. But after various proceedings on both sides, a decree was entered, on the 6th,of February, _1869, which ordered that, the injunction be dissolved, and directed, a sale by the Bradleys, the trustees of the property in controversy, according to the deed of 'trust, and-the bringing of the proceeds into court to abide further orders. From this decree an. appeal was prayed in open court by tlie railroad company, and subsequently an appeal bond was filed in the court, and approved by one of- the judged. But it did not appear directly^ that an appeal was allowed. As already stated, the decree dissolving the injunction 'and directing -a sale, was entered, on the 6th of February, 1869. i A petition for the suspension of this order of dissolution was filed, by the secretary of the railroad company, on the same day; a motion to the same effect was made in behalf of the Department of War, on the 15th of February, and a petition, to open the 'decree was filed on the 13th of February, by’one-of the stockholders of the company.' ■ On the 6th of March, and during the term.at which the decree ‘was rendered, a motion to rescind was made in behalf of the railroad company, and on the 13th of that month was heard and denied. On..the 20th the appeal, was prayed by. the railroad company, and on the 23d, the bond of appeal was-approved and filedi Upon this state of facts two motions were now made'in this court, — one, in behalf of the appellees, to dismiss the :pause for want’ of jurisdiction; the other, in behalf of .the appellants, for a supersedeas^ In support of the motion to -dismiss, it waé urged, Mrst, thatthe decree - appealed, from was-not final; and, Secondly, that there was no allowance.of appeal.- • In support of the motion for .‘supersedeas, that the appeal bond was appi’oved, and filed'within ten days after the decree.