Legal Opinion
Copeland v. Bruning
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana
Decided October 19, 1900No. 8,912PublishedCited by 2 opinions
In Equity. On motion to dismiss bill of review.
1Opinion of the Court
BAKER, District Judge.
The respondent, Bruning, has filed a motion to dismiss the bill of review because the same was not filed within the time limited by law and the practice of the court therefor. The bill is strictly a bill of review for error* of law apparent on the face of the record. Ko objection has been made to the respondent’s right to raise the question by motion to dismiss. The appropriate practice is by demurrer when the objection is distinctly shown on the face of the bill, and by answer when it does not so appear. The case *170of Hyde v. Lamberson, 1 Idaho, 542, holds that advantage…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- WHITING v. the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomotive WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Thomas v. Gabrielle Brockenbrough, John Harvie, Edwin Harvie, Jacqueline Harvie, Julia Ann Harvie, Heirs at Law, and Devisees of John HarvieSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- National Bank v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Kennedy v. Georgia State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nelson v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Lewis v. HolmesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1912