Hampton v. Rouse
Supreme Court of the United States
On motion to amend a writ of error. Prior to the 24th of January, 1878, the annual session of this court began on the first Monday of December in each year; and writs of error were, of course, returnable to that day. But by an act approved on the 24th, just mentioned,* the day was changed; Congress enacting that thenceforth the session should commence “ on the second Monday of October of each year.”
Read the full summary
On motion to amend a writ of error. Prior to the 24th of January, 1878, the annual session of this court began on the first Monday of December in each year; and writs of error were, of course, returnable to that day. But by an act approved on the 24th, just mentioned,* the day was changed; Congress enacting that thenceforth the session should commence “ on the second Monday of October of each year.” By an act of a previous date, the act of June 1st, 1872, “ to further the administration of justice,”† it had been thus, in the third section of the act, provided: “ That the Supreme Court may, at…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Swayne
The case is before us on a motion to amend the writ. It bears teste on the 25th of February, 1873, and was made returnable on the first Monday of December, instead of the second Monday of October, then next ensuing. The commencement of the terms of this court was changed from the former to the latter time by the act of January 24th, 1873. The passage of this act was doubtless unknown to the clerk when he issued the writ. Authority to amend it. in the particular in question is given by the third section of the “act to further the administration of justice,” of June 1st, 1872.
The motion is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Semmes v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Loring v. WittichSupreme Court of Florida · 1878
- Walton v. Marietta Chair Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Norton v. City of DoverUnited States Circuit Court · 1882