TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brandies v. Cochrane

Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U.S. 262 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 13, 1882
Judges
Waite
Citations
105 U.S. 26226 L. Ed. 9891881 U.S. LEXIS 2117
Headnotes
An appeal may be perfected without an order formally allowing it. It is in legal effect allowed when the circuit judge takes the security and' signs the • citation.
Summary
Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for-.the Northern District of Illinois.

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.- This is a motion to dismiss because the appeal was not taken within two years after the entry of the decree.

It appears from the record that the decree was entered on the 2d'of August,, 1879, and on thensarne day the complainants prayed an appeal, which was allowed upon their giving bond •according to law. No bond “was ever given, under this allowance,- and the case was "not docketed here at the October Term, 1879' On the first -of August, 1881, the circuit judge approved a bond for an appeal from the decree and signed a citation. The bond was on the same day filed’ with the clerk, and the citation served .on the 18th of August. .On the 8th of October the Circuit Court entered an order allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc as of August 1. The case was regularly •docketed in this court on the 13th of October.

The circuit judge, by taking the security and signing the citation, allowed an appeal. No formal order of allowance was necessary.

Sage v. Railroad Company, 96 U. S.

712; Draper v. Davis, 102 id. 370. The appeal was, therefore; -taken in time. The order of October. 8th was not required to give it effect.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 34 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 21896: 21898: 21900: 11901: 51902: 21903: 21904: 21908: 11911: 11913: 11923: 11928: 11929: 31932: 11933: 11938: 21939: 11942: 11944: 11949: 118882026peak 1901 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rector v. Alcorn204 F. 748 (5th Cir. 1913)
  2. Gorham v. Broad River Tp.113 F. 83 (1902)
  3. Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central Railway Co.128 U.S. 258 (1888)
  4. Standard Oil Co. v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.32 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1929)
  5. Lookman v. Lang132 F. 1 (8th Cir. 1904)
  6. Midland Terminal Ry. Co. v. Warinner294 F. 185 (8th Cir. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Cutting v. Bullerdick178 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1949)
  2. Compania De Navegacion Transmar, S. A. v. Georgia Hardwood Lumber Co.141 F.2d 652 (5th Cir. 1944)
  3. Blaske v. Dick126 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1942)
  4. Aderhold v. Murphy103 F.2d 492 (10th Cir. 1939)
  5. Partos v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.95 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1938)
  6. Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Pillsbury93 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1938)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sage v. R.R. Co., 96 U.S. 712 (1878) 53

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