TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Western Air Line Construction Co. v. McGillis

WESTERN AIR LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. McGILLIS

Western Air Line Constr. Co. v. McGillis, 127 U.S. 776 (1888)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 16, 1888
Docket
No. 1283
Judges
Mr. Justice Miller:
Citations
127 U.S. 7768 S. Ct. 139032 L. Ed. 3241888 U.S. LEXIS 2041
Syllabus
The court, for reasons stated in its opinion, denies a motion to vacate a supersedeas orto make an order that the'appeal bond filed in the case does not operate as a supersedeas.
Summary
ORIGINAL MOTION IN A CAUSE BROUGHT HERE BY WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. The defendants in error made the following motion: “ And now come the defendants in error in the above cause, by John S. Cooper, their attorney and counsel, and move the court to vacate the supersedeas in the above cause, or for an order declaring that the appeal bond filed by appellant in said cause does not operate as a supersedeas; because the writ of error was not sued out or served within sixty days after the rendering of the judgment entered and complained of in said cause. “John S. Cooper, “ Attorney and Cowisel for Defendants in Error.”

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

Opinion — Miller

Mr. Justice Miller:

This is a motion to vacate what is called a supersedeas. The papers show that the writ ivas neither sued out or served within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment which is the subject of the writ of error: It follows as a matter of course that the writ cannot operate as a supersedeas, and we know of no motion that is necessary or proper in this court on that subject. Writs of supersedeas do not issue, unless it may become necessary from some peculiar circumstances. • The statute declares .that, when within sixty days, the plaintiff sues out his writ of error, files it with the clerk of the proper court, and then gives a bond within a certain time mentioned by the statute, that the bond, if approved for that purpose by the judge who grants the citation and the writ of error, shall operate as a supersedeas. It is a matter of law whether it operates as a supersedeas.

There is no evidence here of any proceeding to collect a debt which has been disregarded. At all events there is no occasion for a supersedeas.

The motion is denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11912: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Odbert v. Marquet175 F. 44 (4th Cir. 1909)
  2. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. General Electric Co.222 U.S. 401 (1912)

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