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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
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 : 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

LARMAN v. TISDALE'S HEIRS, 52 U.S. 586 (1850)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 52 U.S. 586 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

LARMAN v. TISDALE'S HEIRS, 52 U.S. 586 (1850)

52 U.S. 586 (How.)


December Term, 1850

MR. STANTON, of counsel for the defendants in error, moved the court, on the 28th of February, 1851, to dismiss this case, under the fifty- fourth rule of the court, which rule is repeated amongst the preliminary matter in 8 Howard, and is as follows:--

    'No. 54.
    'Ordered, that where an appearance is not entered on the record for either the plaintiff or defendant on or before the second day of the term next succeeding that at which the case is docketed, it shall be dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff.'

Whereupon this court, not being now here sufficiently advised of and concerning what order to render in the premises, took time to consider.

On the 4th of March, 1851, Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

The fifty-fourth rule applies to cases docketed at the regular term; and not to an adjourned term. For it may happen that an adjourned term may be held immediately preceding the regular session.

Page 52 U.S. 586, 587

This case was not docketed until after the close of the regular term of the court, and is, therefore, not within the rule.


On consideration of the motion made in this case by Mr. Stanton, on a prior day of the present term, to wit, on Friday the 28th ultimo, it is now here ordered by the court, that said motion be, and the same is hereby, overruled.

Full Text of Opinion

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™