TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Portland Co. v. United States

Portland Company v. United States

Portland Co. v. United States, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 1 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 20, 1873
Judges
Justice
Citations
82 U.S. 121 L. Ed. 11315 Wall. 11872 U.S. LEXIS 1221
Syllabus
A case dismissed, January 8th, 1873, because the counsel for the appellant did not file a brief in the form required by the amendment to the 21st rule, promulgated November 16th, 1872, and to be seen at large in 14 Wallace, p. ix.
Summary
Appeal from the Court of Claims. The Portland Company, a corporation of Maine, filed a petition in the court just named to recover the drawback allowed by'the 17th section of the act of June 30th, 1864,* on certain locomotive-eiigines exported by them. The engines were manufactured by the company under a contract with the United States, and the internal revenue.tax thereon was paid. Afterwards the engines were sold by the government at public auction, and the company bought them. The Court of Claims dismissed the petition, and the claimants appealed. ' On the case being called, January 8th, 1872, it ivas submitted by the appellants on the record, no brief being filed in their behalf. ’

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

Opinion — Justice

The CHIEF JUSTICE, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

From time to time, the court has adopted rules of practice *2 intended to facilitate the presentation of causes by couusel and their consideration by the court. Finding that these rules, through the inattention of the bar, had failed in a great degree of their intended effect, we promulgated at the last term and for the same end, an amended twenty-first rule, the fourth section of which required that the brief should contain, in the order there stated:

First, a concise abstract or statement presenting succinctly the questions iuvolved, and the manner in which they were raised;

Second, an assignment of the errors relied upon, setting out, in eases brought up by writ of error, separately and specifically, each error asserted and intended to be urged, and in cases brought up by appeal, as specifically as may be, the error alleged to exist in the decree; or, if the error be alleged in a ruling upon the report of a master, stating the exception to the report and the action of the court upon it;

Third, a brief of the argument exhibiting a clear statement of the points of law or fact to be discussed, with a reference to the pages of the record and authorities relied upon in support of each point, and containing, when a statute of a State is cited, so much thereof as may be deemed necessary to the decision of the case, printed at length.

The fifth section of the rule also required that when the error allowed is to the charge of the court, the specification shall set out the part referred to toiidem verbis, whether it be instructions given or instructions refused.

And the sixth section required that when the error alleged is to the admission or rejection of evidence, the specification shall quote the full substance of the evidence admitted or rejected.

The necessity of strict compliance with these rules, especially in view of the greatly augmented business of the court, is evident. It will facilitate as much the labors of the bar as those of the bench. That counsel might have full notice of the rule, it was required to take effect on the first day of the present month of January, and the clerk was directed to have printed copies made. of the rule as amended, and send one *3 copy to eacli of the counsel in all cases pending and not yet argued. In the case before us, this rule has been totally disregarded on the part of tho appellant.

"We shall, therefore, in this case Dismiss the appeal.

How later courts describe this case

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

1880–1881: 11902–1903: 11906–1907: 11924–1925: 11982–1983: 12020–2021: 118802026peak 1880 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fitch v. Richardson147 F. 196 (1st Cir. 1906)
  2. Zalduondo v. Civille295 F. 691 (1st Cir. 1924)
  3. Perry, Matthews-Buskirk Stone Co. v. Wilson67 N.E. 183 (Ind. 1903)
  4. Jesse James Ford, III v. Thomas Israel701 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1983)
  5. Southern Express Co. v. VanMeter17 Fla. 782 (1880)
  6. (PS) Renfro v. AndersonNo. 2:19-cv-00001 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021)

Most recent

  1. (PS) Renfro v. AndersonNo. 2:19-cv-00001 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021)
  2. Jesse James Ford, III v. Thomas Israel701 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1983)
  3. Zalduondo v. Civille295 F. 691 (1st Cir. 1924)
  4. Fitch v. Richardson147 F. 196 (1st Cir. 1906)
  5. Perry, Matthews-Buskirk Stone Co. v. Wilson67 N.E. 183 (Ind. 1903)
  6. Southern Express Co. v. VanMeter17 Fla. 782 (1880)

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