TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hurley v. Jones

Hurley v. Jones, 97 U.S. 318 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 16, 1878
Judges
Waite
Citations
97 U.S. 31824 L. Ed. 10081877 U.S. LEXIS 1780
Headnotes
1. When a cause, reached in its regular order upon the docket, has, under Rule 10, been dismissed by reason of the appellant's non-appearance, for which no just cause existed, it will not, over the objection of the appellee, be reinstated. 2. In view of the crowded state of the docket, the court announces its determination to enforce rigidly the rule requiring causes to be ready for hearing when they are reached.
Summary
Motion to reinstate a cause dismissed under the sixteenth rule.

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.

When this cause was reached in its order upon the docket, there being no appearance by the appellant, the appellee had him called and the appeal dismissed under Rule. 16. Our rules require that, “ upon the filing of the transcript of a record brought up by writ of error or appeal, the appearance of counsel for the plaintiff in error or appellant shall be entered.” Rule 9, par. 3. This rule was adopted for the purpose of making some attorney of the court responsible for the due prosecution of the suit-, and it was intended for something more than mere form. Parties should understand that they are represented here by their counsel, and that notice to counsel is ordinarily equivalent to notice to themselves.

This cause was docketed here nearly two years and a half before it was called. The attorney of record seems to have done all he was expected to do. But the appellant himself was so unmindful of his interests, that he did not know the counsel, upon whom he relied for the presentation of his case, had died before the commencement of the present term, and had been unable to attend to business on account of impaired health for a long time before his death. In the crowded state of our docket, filled with cases from all parts of the United States, it is our duty to take special care that the necessary delays in *319 disposing of the business are not added to by the neglect of counsel or parties. For this reason, our rules requiring causes to be ready for hearing when reached are, and will continue to be, rigidly enforced.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1879–1880: 11881–1882: 11919–1920: 118792026peak 1879 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Newman v. Moyers253 U.S. 182 (1920)
  2. James v. McCormack105 U.S. 265 (1881)
  3. Alvord v. United States99 U.S. 593 (1879)

Most recent

  1. Newman v. Moyers253 U.S. 182 (1920)
  2. James v. McCormack105 U.S. 265 (1881)
  3. Alvord v. United States99 U.S. 593 (1879)

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