Browder v. McArthur
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Citation | Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, 20 U.S. 58, 5 L.Ed. 397 (1822) |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1822 |
| Parties | BROWDER v. MCARTHUR |
Feb. 21st.
Mr. Doddridge, for the appellant, Browder, moved for a rehearing in this cause, which is the same case that was determined at the last term, and remitted to the Court below to carry into effect the decree of this Court.a It was now again brought before this Court, upon an appeal from the decree of the Court below, entered according to the mandate from this Court. The appellant's counsel now moved for a rehearing upon the merits.b
The COURT denied the motion, being of opinion that it was too late to grant a rehearing in a cause after it had been remitted to the Court below, to carry into effect the decree of this Court, according to its mandate; and that a subsequent appeal from the Circuit Court, for supposed error in carrying into
b He cited 2 Madd. Chan. 390. 3 P. Wms. 8. 2 Atk. 439 effect...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
31 cases
-
Carter Oil Co. v. Eli
...v. Overbagh, 4 Wend. (N.Y.) 188; cases collected in note, 21 Am. Dec. 118; Delaplaine v. Bergen, 7 Hill (N.Y.) 591; Browder v. M'Arthur, 20 U.S. 58, 7 Wheat. 58, 5 L. Ed. 397; Peck v. Sanderson, 59 U.S. 42, 18 HOW 42, 15 L. Ed. 262; Underhill v. Jericho, 66 Vt. 183, 28 A. 879; Sullivan v. S......
-
Sun Oil Co. v. Burford
...of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U.S. 66, 37 S.Ct. 353, 61 L.Ed. 597, Ann.Cas. 1917D, 322. 4 Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, 5 L.Ed. 397; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42, 15 L.Ed. 262; Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. ......
-
Todd v. State
...nothing is brought up but the proceeding subsequent to the mandate. [Himely v. Rose], 5 Cranch, , 316, 3 L.Ed. 112; [Browder v. McArthur], 7 Wheat. 58, 59, 5 L.Ed. 397; [The Santa Maria], 10 Wheat. , 443, 6 L.Ed. 362.' Sibbald v. United States, 1938, 12 Pet. 488, 491, 9 L.Ed. 1167; People o......
-
Omaha Elec. Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha
...has gone down. Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Noonan v. Bradley, 12 Wall. 121, 125, 20 L.Ed. 279; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat, 58, 5 L.Ed. 397; Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42, 15 L.Ed. Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. 413, 11 L.Ed. 658; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 13......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
REEXAMINING RECALL OF MANDATE: LIMITATIONS ON THE INHERENT POWER TO CHANGE FINAL JUDGMENTS.
...131, 133 (1921); Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 417 (1881); Wash. Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U.S. 413, 424 (1845); Browder v. McArthur, 20 U.S. 58, 58 (1822); Cameron v. McRoberts, 16 U.S. 591, 593 (25.) Peck v. Sanderson, 59 U.S. 42, 42 (1855). (26.) Id. The Court did note that Sanderso......