Hudson Smith v. Guestier
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Washington |
| Citation | Hudson Smith v. Guestier, 11 U.S. 1, 7 Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249 (1812) |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1812 |
| Parties | HUDSON & SMITH v. GUESTIER |
BY THE COURT, that the case could not be re-heard after the term in which it had been decided.
GENERAL RULE.
February 10th.
Winder, requested information from the Court whether the general rule which directs that only two counsellors should be heard on each side of any cause in this Court, was intended to prevent the division of a cause into distinct points, and the hearing of two counsellors on each point.
...
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
8 cases
-
Gilmore v. United States
...the expiration of the term at which it was entered, unless the proceeding for that purpose was begun during that term. Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591, 4 L.Ed. 467; Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167, 1169; Bank of United States ......
-
Glass Co v. Co
...in accordance with all earlier precedents that, even in a case of such hardship, the District Court had no such power. 6 Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249; Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480, 9 L.Ed. 502; Sibbald v. United States, supra, 12 Pet. at page 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Washington B......
-
Gratiot v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... 194; Tetherow v. Railroad, 98 ... Mo. 74; Kelly v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 604; Smith v ... Railroad, 61 Mo. 588; Meyer v Railroad, 40 Mo ... 151; Wilkins v. Railroad, 101 Mo ... first made at a term subsequent to final judgment, cannot ... properly be considered. Hudson v. Guestier (1812), 7 ... Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249; Brooks v. Railroad (1880) 102 ... U.S. 107, ... ...
-
United States v. Bruce
...the expiration of the term at which it was entered, unless the proceeding for that purpose was begun during that term. Hudson v. Guester, 7 Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591, 4 L.Ed. 467; Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167, 1169; Bank of United States v......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Shipwrecked Sovereignty
...Bank of New York v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356, 362 (1955). Cited in Odyssey (11th Ct.), 1140.18. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 137 (1812); Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 128 (2008).19. Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 867. See also: Er......
