Hurley v. Jones
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | Hurley v. Jones, 97 U.S. 318, 24 L.Ed. 1008 (1877) |
| Parties | HURLEY v. JONES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
MOTION to reinstate a cause dismissed under the sixteenth rule.
Mr. Fillmore Beall in support of the motion.
Mr. W. F. Sapp, contra.
When this cause was reached in its order upon the docket, there being no appearance by the appellant, the appellee had him called and the appeal dismissed under Rule 16. Our rules require that, 'upon the filing of the transcript of a record brought up by writ of error or appeal, the appearance of counsel for the plaintiff in error or appellant shall be entered.' Rule 9, par. 3. This rule was adopted for the purpose of making some attorney of the court responsible for the due prosecution of the suit, and it was intended for something more than mere form. Parties should understand that they are represented here by their counsel, and that notice to counsel is ordinarily equivalent to notice to themselves.
This cause was docketed here nearly two years and a half before it was called. The attorney of record seems to have done all he was expected to do. But the appellant himself was so unmindful of his interests, that he...
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
-
Newman v. Moyers
...is still in force under rules 9 and 16 of this court (32 Sup. Ct. vii, ix). Todd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521, 10 L. Ed. 1054; Hurley v. Jones, 97 U. S. 318, 24 L. Ed. 1008; The S. S. Osborne, 105 U. S. 447, 450, 451, 26 L. Ed. 1065. It is applicable to one of several joint appellants who fails t......
-
Riner v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company
...v. Owen (Mo.), 14 S. W., 632; Bank v. Traube, 75 Mo. 199; People v. Russell, 4 Wend., 570; 64 N.Y. 231; 68 N. W., 941; 33 N. Y. Sup., 695; 97 U.S. 318; 98 N.Y. 467; 21 id., 88; 6 279; 23 id., 149; 13 N. W., 496; 58 N.Y. 541; 62 id., 88; 82 id., 121; 91 id., 353; 64 id., 385; 61 N. W., 107; ......
- Bartalott v. Int'l Bank of Chicago
- Allis v. Insurance Company