Legal Opinion

Kelley v. Mississippi Central R.

United States Circuit Court

Decided March 15, 1880PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.

The only question to be now determined is whether the persons named in the marshal’s return shall be allowed to plead. The question here raised usually arises in some collateral way, and when it has been directly presented, as in this case, the courts are always beset with technical difficulties. On the one hand it is urged that a dead party cannot speak; that a non-existing thing cannot, without admitting the very question in dispute, plead in the manner it might if it did exist; while on the other hand it is said with *565equal force that one not a party to a suit cannot be hoard to interfere…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Mumma v. Potomac Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1834
  2. National Bank v. ColbySupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  3. Foster v. President of the Essex BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
  4. McGoon v. ScalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  5. Bronson v. La Crosse & Milwaukie RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1864

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Christensen v. BossNebraska Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Economy Building & Loan Ass'n v. Paris Ice Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
  3. Gullett v. First Christian Church of MeridianMississippi Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Sheehan v. Municipal Light & Power Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API