Mayer v. Walsh
| Decision Date | 18 December 1882 |
| Parties | MAYER and others v. WALSH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
C. W. Hornor, for appellants.
P. Phillips and W. H. Phillips, for appellee.
This is a cross-appeal, and the record has not been printed. As the case is here on the original appeal by the present appellee, we are not inclined to grant this motion in the absence of the printed record. It appears from the motion papers that the present appellant pleaded prescription, and we infer that this plea was not sustained. By his other defenses he defeated the claim in part. To review the decree, so far as it is affected by these defenses, the present appellee appealed. If, on that appeal, these defenses are overruled, it may be important to the present appellant to insist on his defense of prescription against a claim that will then amount to more than $5,000. Had not the other side appealed, the present appellant could not, because the decree against him is less than $5,000. Under these circumstances it may be that this appeal was well taken. Without, however, deciding that question, we postpone the further consideration of the motion until the hearing on the merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Tool Co v. Wilson
...to be erroneous; for the judgment in the contempt proceeding was a unit. The case resembles in some respects Mayer v. Walsh, 108 U. S. 17, 1 Sup. Ct. 417, 27 L. Ed. 635; Walsh v. Mayer, 111 U. S. 31, 37, 38, 4 Sup. Ct. 260, 28 L. Ed. 338. Compare Field v. Barber Asphalt Co., 194 U. S. 618, ......