Terry v. Sharon
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This was a motion to dismiss for want of' jurisdiction, because the order or decree from which the appeal was taken was not a final decree.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. This was a motion to dismiss for want of' jurisdiction, because the order or decree from which the appeal was taken was not a final decree. To this motion was also added, under rule 6, (108 U. S. 515,) a motion to affirm, on the ground that, although the record in the said cause might show that this court had jurisdiction in the premises, yet "it was manifest that said appeal was taken for delay only, and that the question on which such jurisdiction depends was so frivolous as not to need further…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Miller
The motion to dismiss the appeal is based’ upon the proposition that the order reviving the suit is not such a final order or decree as can be brought to this court for review. The principal argument on that subject is, - that like the proceedings subsequent to a judgment at law for its enforcement by execution or otherwise, it is merely ancillary to the original decree, and a mode of carrying it into effect. But we are not satisfied that this is a sound argument, and if the case before us rested alone upon the question of dismissing the appeal, or overruling thé motion to do so, we shopld…
2Cited by19 opinions
- In Re NeagleSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Brauer MacHine & Supply Co. Ex Rel. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Parkhill Truck Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1943
- Spindel v. SpindelDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- Rector v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.