United States v. De Pacheco
Supreme Court of the United States
These four cases are put together, because they were all covered by oné decision of the court. They were cases from California. In the first, Mr. Oritiendcn moved to dismiss the appeal. 1st. Because it was not taken during the term at which the decree was rendered. 2d. To docket and dismiss pursuant to the sixty-third rule of court.
Read the full summary
These four cases are put together, because they were all covered by oné decision of the court. They were cases from California. In the first, Mr. Oritiendcn moved to dismiss the appeal. 1st. Because it was not taken during the term at which the decree was rendered. 2d. To docket and dismiss pursuant to the sixty-third rule of court. Mr. Orittendm offered with his motion a duly-certified transcript of the record; from which it appeared that the decree of the District Court confirming the grant was made on the 22d September, 1856, and that the United States appealed therefrom at the next stated…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Taney
A motion has been made to docket and dismiss this case.
It appears, by a certified copy of the record in the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California, that a decree was passed by that court on the 22d of September, 1856, confirming the title of Pacheco to certain lands therein mentioned. No appeal was taken by the United States at the term at which the decree was made, but an appeal was entered at the next succeeding term, in March, 1857.
Pacheco by his counsel how moves to docket and dismiss the ease, upon two grounds: 1st. Because the appeal was not taken at…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Coyle v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- State v. McCartyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
- Hills v. SherwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Freas v. EngelbrechtSupreme Court of Colorado · 1877
- Thornton v. MahoneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.