CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


MAYER V. WALSH, 108 U. S. 17 (1882)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 108 U. S. 17 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Mayer v. Walsh, 108 U.S. 17 (1882)

Mayer v. Walsh

Decided December 18, 1882

108 U.S. 17

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Syllabus

In the absence of a printed record the court will not grant a motion to dismiss when the motion papers disclose equitable reasons why it should not be granted.

MR. JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a cross-appeal, and the record has not been printed. As the case is here on the original appeal by the present appellee, we are not inclined to grant this motion in the absence of the printed record. It appears from the motion papers that the present appellant pleaded prescription, and we infer that this plea was not sustained. By his other defenses, he defeated the claim in part. To review the decree, so far as it is affected by these defenses, the present appellee appealed. If on that appeal these defenses are overruled, it may be important to the present appellant to insist on his defense of prescription against a claim that will then amount to more than $5,000. Had not the other side appealed, the present appellant could not, because the decree against him is less than $5,000. Under these circumstances, it may be that this appeal was well taken. Without, however, deciding that question, we postpone the further consideration of the motion until the hearing on the merits.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED