TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.

Bushnell v. Crooke Mining and Smelting Company

Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co., 150 U.S. 82 (1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 30, 1893
Docket
No. 195
Judges
The Chief Justice:
Citations
150 U.S. 8214 S. Ct. 2237 L. Ed. 10071893 U.S. LEXIS 2354
Syllabus
An application for a rehearing cannot be entertained when presented aft^r tlie expiration of the term at which the judgment was rendered.
Summary
ERROR TO THE -SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. This was an application for leave to file a petition for a rehearing of a case decided at October term, 1892. The petition ivas supported by the following affidavit, entitled in the cause. “ A. R. Bushnell being duly sworn on oath, says that he is attorney for himself and coplaintiffs in error in the above entitled cause, and had exclusive charge of the conduct of the same in said court; that the decision therein, dismissing the writ for want of jurisdiction, was rendered April 17, 1893, and immediately on being informed thereof by letter from tlie clerk of said court, which he received as soon thereafter as it could be sent by due course of mail, with a view to filing a petition for a rehearing in said cause under the rules, he made inquiry of attorneys more familiar than himself with the usual time of the final adjournment of the annual terms of said court, and was by them informed that such adjournment of the then October term, 1892, of said court could not surely be expected that spring, and that they understood the practice of the court to be to take a summer recess, and that such final adjournment would not be reached until this fall, and hot long before the beginning of the October term, 1893, of said court; that thereupon he immediately procured a copy of the opinion in said cause and began the preparation of a petition on behalf' of the plaintiffs in error for a rehearing therein, but relying upon such information,.did not press the same to completion in time to be filed by May 15, 1893, when he is informed such final adjournment of said October term, 1892, of said court was actually had; and he says that his failure to file such petition for a rehearing in said cause before such final adjournment, was wholly owing to his mistake as to the time when the same would take place, made through such misinformation; and he verily believes that leave being given him to file such petition, such rehearing of said cause ought to be granted by the court. “A. K. Bushnell. “ Subscribed and sworn to this 29th day of September, 1893, before me. “ F. M. Stewart, “ Clerk of U. 8. Courts for said District.”

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

Opinion

The Chief Justice:

Wq.

should not have been called on to reiterate the rule that án application for a rehearing cannot be entertained when presented after the expiration of the term at which the judgment was- rendered.

Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch, 1;

Browder v. M'Arthur, 7 Wheat. 58;

Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488 ;

Brooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U. S.107 ;

Williams v. Conger, 131 U. S. 390 .

Application denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1901: 11914: 11937: 11939: 11944: 11953: 11955: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wojculewicz v. State117 A.2d 439 (Conn. 1955)
  2. Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp.108 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1939)
  3. Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board90 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1937)
  4. Watson v. Gallagher202 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1953)
  5. Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha216 F. 848 (8th Cir. 1914)
  6. Reynolds v. Manhattan Trust Co.109 F. 97 (8th Cir. 1901)

Most recent

  1. Wojculewicz v. State117 A.2d 439 (Conn. 1955)
  2. Watson v. Gallagher202 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1953)
  3. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.322 U.S. 238 (1944)
  4. Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp.108 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1939)
  5. Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board90 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1937)
  6. Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha216 F. 848 (8th Cir. 1914)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Sibbald v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 488 (1838) 291
Browder v. McArthur, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 58 (1822) 36
Hudson v. Guestier, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 1 (1812) 14
Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390 (1888) 7

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