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


PECK V. SANDERSON, 59 U. S. 42 (1855)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 59 U. S. 42 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Peck v. Sanderson, 59 U.S. 18 How. 42 42 (1855)

Peck v. Sanderson

59 U.S. (18 How.) 42

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Syllabus

This Court cannot grant a motion for the rehearing of a cause which has been transmitted to the court below.

This case was argued and decided at the last term, and is reported in 17 Howard.

Mr. Rush, of counsel for the appellee, now stated to the Court that a petition from the appellee was on file, verified by affidavit, and moved for a rehearing, which was opposed by Mr. Wahr, counsel for the appellant.

MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of court.

This case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by Mr. Rush, counsel for the appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was prevented by sickness from attending the Court at the time of the hearing.

It is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a failure in the mail, was unknown to the Court.

In the above case, the brief of the counsel was before the Court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have changed the result.

But in the case of Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, it was held that this Court cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted to the court below, and in the case of Washington Bridge Company v. Stewart, 3 How. 413, the same principle was recognized. The motion is

Overruled.





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