Radford v. Folsom
| Decision Date | 19 December 1887 |
| Citation | 123 U.S. 725,8 S.Ct. 334,31 L.Ed. 292 |
| Parties | RADFORD et al. v. FOLSOM et al. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Jos G. Anderson and Frank Hagerman, for defendants.
W. F. Sapp and Walter H. Smith, for complainants.
This suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage given to secure several alleged debts. On the second of April, 1884, the bill wad dismissed on its merits as to the principal one of the debts and some others, but as to the rest, and as to matters contained in a cross-bill of the defendants, the cause was referred to a master to find certain facts and state certain accounts. The complaint on the same day prayed an appeal to this court, which was allowed, but never docketed here. On the tenth of October, 1885, the court, after overruling certain exceptions to the master's report, entered a second and last decree, which was against the complainant, for $14,084.77. At the end of that decree was the following: 'And the complainant prays an appeal from the foregoing decree, which appeal is by the court hereby allowed, and the penalty of the appeal-bond, if the same is to operate as a supersedeas, is fixed at _____ dollars, but if the same is not to operate as a supersedeas, then the penalty of the appeal-bond is fixed at _____ dollars.' The next term of this court thereafter began October 12, 1885, and the appeal was not docketed here during that term.
On the eighth of February, 1886, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court an order made by the district judge at his chambers, and after the term at which the decree was rendered, fixing the amount of the appeal-bond at $20,000, if for supersedeas, and at $2,000, if for costs only. On the eighth of March the complainant filed a motion to modify the amount of the appeal-bond. On the eighth of June, while this motion was pending, the complainant filed with the clerk of the circuit court an appeal-bond, dated March 1, 1886, in the penal sum of $25,000, which had been approved by the district judge as a supersedeas bond. On the second of October the motion to modify the amount of the appeal-bond was overruled by the court, 'on the ground that the case was then in the supreme court of the United States.' The case was docketed in this court October 15, 1886. It does not appear that any citation has ever been signed or served. This motion was made on the eighth of December, 1887, during the present term, to dismiss the case, 'because each of said appeals became null and void when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. United States
... ... 505, 9 Sup.Ct. 331, 32 L.Ed. 784 (1889); Fayolle v ... Texas & Pacific R. Co., 124 U.S. 519, 8 Sup.Ct. 588, 31 ... L.Ed. 533 (1888); Radford v. Folsom, 123 U.S. 725, 8 ... Sup.Ct. 334, 31 L.Ed. 292 (1887); Caillot v ... Deetken, 113 U.S. 215, 5 Sup.Ct. 432, 28 L.Ed. 983 ... (1885); ... ...
-
Blackburn v. Morrison
...court during the term at which judgment was rendered, the taking of the appeal is of the date of its allowance. Radford v. Folsom, 123 U.S. 725, 8 S. Ct. 334, 31 L. Ed. 292; Dodge v. Knowles, 114 U.S. 430, 5 S. Ct. 1197, 29 L. Ed. 144; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U.S. 142, 6 S. Ct. 319, 29 L. Ed......
-
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, Wis. v. Averill
... ... are bound." ... The ... Supreme Court of the United States in Radford v ... Folsom, 123 U.S. 725, 8 S.Ct. 334, 31 L.Ed. 292, held ... that the appearance of counsel for appellee at a term ... ...
-
Blackburn v. Morrison
... ... rendered, the taking of the appeal is of the date of its ... allowance. Radford v. Folsom, 123 U.S. 725, 8 S.Ct ... 334, 31 L.Ed. 292; Dodge v. Knowles, 114 U.S. 430, 5 ... S.Ct. 1197, 29 L.Ed. 144; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 ... ...