Lucius Stockton and Daniel Moore, Plaintiffs In Error v. Harriet Bishop, Defendant
Decision Date | 01 January 1844 |
Citation | 2 How. 74,43 U.S. 74,11 L.Ed. 184 |
Parties | LUCIUS W. STOCKTON AND DANIEL MOORE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HARRIET BISHOP, DEFENDANT |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Upon the facts stated in the application, there is no doubt that the writ of error, bond, and citation, having been given in due season according to law, operated as a stay of execution, and that a supersedeas to the fieri facias ought to issue from this court, to supercede and quash the same, as prayed for in the motion. Indeed, the issuing of the execution was wholly irregular, and it might have been quashed by an application to the court below. But it is equally competent for this court to do the same thing in furtherance of the purposes of justice. The motion is therefore, granted and a supersedeas will be issued accordingly.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss.:
The President of the United States of America
To the Honorable the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, and to the Marshal of the United States for the said district, greeting:
WHEREAS, lately in the said Circuit Court, _____ before you, or some of you, in a cause between Harriet Bishop, plaintiff, and Lucius W. Stockton and Daniel Moore, defendants, judgment was rendered by the said Circuit Court on the 7th of December, 1843, in favor of the said plaintiff and against the said defendants, for the sum of $6500 and costs of suit, and on the 15th December, 1843, the aforesaid defendants, with sufficient security, filed their bond in error, which was approved by the judge of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hudson v. Parker
...and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. Act Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, § 14 (1 Stat. 81, 82); Rev. St. § 716; Stockton v. Bishop, 2 How. 74; Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640; Ex parte Milwaukee R. R., 5 Wall. 188. Under the first judiciary act this court had power 'to make and establ......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Worth & N. O. Ry. Co.
...Janney, 6 Grat. 609; New Brighton, etc., R. Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 105 Pa. St. 13; Yeoman v. Lasley, 36 Ohio St. 416; Stockton v. Bishop, 2 How. 74; Slaughter-house Cases, 10 Wall. The motion here made has been resisted mainly upon three grounds: First, that the judgment of the di......
-
People ex rel. Kochersperger v. Wadlow
...time, the title to the land sold will pass by the sheriff's deed. Oakes v. Williams, 107 Ill. 154;Shirk v. Road Co., 110 Ill. 661;Stockton v. Bishop, 2 How. 74. But we do not regard any of these cases as strictly in point upon the question here involved, for the reason that special assessme......
-
In re Alexander McKenzie, Petitioner . No. ___, Original
...required there are instances in which it has been done, under special circumstances, and in furtherance of justice. Stockton v. Bishop, 2 How. 74, 11 L. ed. 184; Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640, 11 L. ed. 1138; Ex parte Milwaukee & M. R. Co. 5 Wall. 188, 18 L. ed. In Re Claasen, 140 U. S. ......