U.S. Supreme Court
Caldwell v. Texas, 141 U.S. 209 (1891)
Caldwell v. Texas
Submitted May 11, 1891
Decided May 25, 1891
141 U.S. 209
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
There having been some irregularity in the submission of this case on the 15th of December, 1590, the court allows a resubmission, and an additional brief is filed at its request, and it now adheres to its former decision, dismissing the writ for want of jurisdiction. 137 U. S. 137 U.S. 692.
The case, as stated by the Court, was as follows:
The writ of error in this case was dismissed January 12, 1891. Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692. Plaintiff in error applied for a rehearing upon the ground that no notice had been given of the motion to dismiss. The record here showed that a motion to advance and a motion to dismiss were submitted on December 15, 1890, and the order in relation to the latter motion stated that it was submitted on the record and printed arguments of counsel for both parties.
An extended printed argument on the merits had been previously filed on behalf of plaintiff in error, as well as the written consent of his counsel that the cause might be advanced, but from the affidavits accompanying the application for rehearing it appeared that, through some inadvertence, the notice of the motion to dismiss had not in fact been given. We therefore directed the judgment to be vacated and notice to be served, returnable on the second Monday in April, the motion to be then considered upon such additional printed briefs as might be presented.
This was accordingly done, but no further briefs were filed, and on April 14, suggestion of illness of counsel was made, and the time twice enlarged. On the 11th of May, the case was taken on resubmission, and, a request having been made that the cause be continued to next term or that other counsel be assigned to represent plaintiff in error, other counsel has examined the record and filed an additional brief. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion (including the above statement) of the Court.
We have again considered the case, but see no reason to change the conclusion heretofore announced. The writ of error will therefore be