Roemer v. Simon

Roemer v. Simon Et Al.

Roemer v. Simon, 91 U.S. 149 (1875)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: December 18, 1875
Judges: Waite
Citations: 91 U.S. 14923 L. Ed. 2671875 U.S. LEXIS 1345

Headnotes

1. This court cannot, after an appeal in equity, receive new evidence; nor can it upon motion set aside a decree of the court below, and grant a rehearing. 2. The court below can grant a rehearing during the term at which the final decree was rendered, but not thereafter; and an application therefor must be addressed to that court. 3. Should the court below, after the record has been filed here, request a return thereof for the purpose of further proceedings in the cause, this court would, in a proper case and under suitable restrictions, make the necessary order.

Summary

Appear from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. On motion. The bill filed in this case was for an alleged infringement of letters-patent, No. 56,801, granted to the appellant, bearing date July 31,1866,.for improvements in travellingbags, and prayed for an account and an injunction. .Upon a final hearing, a decree was rendered at the March Term of said Circuit Court, 1874, dismissing the bill. stating in substance that new and material evidence, previously unknown to him, had been discovered since' the appeal herein. The affidavits of sundry persons, setting forth as well the nature of the evidence as the matters thereby established, were attached to the petition,. He thereupon moved that leave be granted the appellant to give to the appellees the requisite notice of a further motion for a rule requiring them to show cause why this court should not remit the record to the court below for a rehearing of the cause.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. i It is clear, that, after an appeal in equity to this court, we cannot, upon motion, set aside a decree of the court below, and grant a rehearing. ' We can only affirm, reverse, or modify the ■decree appealed from, and that upon the hearing of the cause. No new evidence can be received here. Rév. Stat. sect. 698. The court below cannot grant a rehearing'after .the term at which the final decree was rendered. Equity Rule, 88. It would be useless to remand this cause, theféfore, as the term at which the decree was rendered has passed. If the term still continued, the proper practice would be to make application to the court below for a rehearing, and have that court send to us a request for a return of the record,' in order that it- : might proceed further with the cause. Should such á request' be made, we might, in a proper case and under proper restrictions, make the necessary order; but we cannot make such .an order on the application of the parties. The court below alone can make the request of us. The application of the parties must be addressed to that court, and not to us.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 46 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co.123 F.2d 453 (1st Cir. 1941)
Reed v. Thompson6 Alaska 215 (D. Alaska 1919)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.322 U.S. 238 (1944)
Star Publishing Co. v. Martin95 A.2d 465 (Del. Super. Ct. 1953)
Hall v. United States78 F.2d 168 (10th Cir. 1935)
Star Pub. Co. v. Martin95 A.2d 465 (Del. 1953)

Most recent

Susan D. Goland and Patricia B. Skidmore v. Central Intelligence Agency607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
Application of Raymond P. Fischer360 F.2d 230 (C.C.P.A. 1966)
Hilario Sierra v. Merchants Mutual Casualty Company262 F.2d 287 (1st Cir. 1958)
Nicolo San Filippo v. John F. Mulcahey, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization261 F.2d 260 (1st Cir. 1958)
Star Pub. Co. v. Martin95 A.2d 465 (Del. 1953)
Star Publishing Co. v. Martin95 A.2d 465 (Del. Super. Ct. 1953)

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.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list