Enoch Roberts, Plaintiff In Error v. James Cooper

Decision Date01 December 1856
Citation15 L.Ed. 687,60 U.S. 373,19 How. 373
PartiesENOCH C. ROBERTS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JAMES M. COOPER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Michigan.

It will be seen, by reference to 18 Howard, that this court, at the last term, in a case between these same parties, decided in favor of Cooper's title to a tract of land in Michigan. In order to recover a part of the tract which was not included in the former suit, Cooper brought an ejectment against Roberts, and obtained a judgment against him. Roberts then brought the case up to this court by writ of error.

But in consequence of its being so low upon the docket as not to be reached at the present term, Mr. Vinton, counsel for Cooper, moved for an order requiring the plaintiff in error to give additional security in the sum of $25,000, or for such other sum as, in the judgment of the court, would be sufficient to answer all damages and costs which Cooper might suffer if the writ of error should not be prosecuted with effect; and filed an affidavit by Cooper in support thereof.

The motion was argued by Mr. Vinton in support, and by Mr. Romeyn against it.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, Roberts, who is the plaintiff in error, on the allowance of the writ of error, gave security in the sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned that he would prosecute his writ to effect, and answer all damages and costs if he failed to make his plea good. Cooper now declares that the bond for one thousand dollars is not sufficient to answer all the damages and costs, if Roberts should fail to prosecute his writ to effect, and refers to an affidavit filed by him as the basis of this motion to show that fact.

Mr. Vinton, counsel of Cooper, now moves the court for an order requiring Roberts to give additional security in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, or such other sum as the court may deem to be sufficient to cover all damages which Cooper may suffer, if the writ of error should not be prosecuted with effect.

The case between the parties is for the recovery of land in ejectment. Cooper represents that he holds the legal title to the land in controversy in trust for the National Mining Company, incorporated by the Legislature of the State of Michigan, to carry on the business of mining for copper, and that he is the secretary and treasurer of the company; that he instituted this suit to recover the possession of this land for them, that they might have the use and occupation of it for their chartered purposes. It is also stated by the affiant that a decision had been given by the Supreme Court of the United States at its last term, on a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the district of Michigan, between the same parties in controversy, for the same land, establishing, on the merits of the case, the title of the affiant to the land, and that the mining company, in consequence of it, had prepared to prosecute its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Gleeson's Estate
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1899
    ...the premises pending the appeal; and under the decisions, such cannot be recovered on the bond: Johnson v. Hessel, 134 Pa. 315; Roberts v. Cooper, 19 How. 373; Kountze Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U.S. 378; Burgess v. Doble, 21 N.E. 438. N. Dubois Miller, with him Biddle & Ward, for appellee. -- Th......
  • Central Soya Co., Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • December 27, 1983
    ...a court to listen to criticisms on their opinions, or speculate of chances from changes of its members." Robert v. Cooper, 61 U.S. 467, 481, 20 Howard 467, 481, 15 L.Ed. 687 (1857). As one of our predecessor courts recently reiterated: "No litigant deserves an opportunity to go over the sam......
  • State ex rel. Heckel v. Klein
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1897
    ... ... Henry, 4 Sandf. Chan. 390; ... Roberts v. Jenkins, 80 Ky. 666; Roberts v ... Cooper, ... ...
  • Tarpey v. Sharp
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1895
    ...make the sureties thereon of the defendants in this case liable for the value of the rent or use and occupation of the premises. Roberts v. Cooper, 19 How. 373; v. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U.S. 378. We submit that these adjudications are conclusive in this case and determine that the verdict an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT