Railroad Company v. Bradleys
| Decision Date | 01 December 1868 |
| Citation | 19 L.Ed. 274,74 U.S. 575,7 Wall. 575 |
| Parties | RAILROAD COMPANY v. BRADLEYS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
MOTIONS to dismiss and for supersedeas, on an appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The case was thus:- The Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria Railroad Company had filed, in 1863, a bill to enjoin the City of Washington and J. and A. Bradley, trustees, from making sale of certain property conveyed by the company in mortgage to the said Bradleys as trustees, and under which the Bradleys were about to sell the property to pay the mortgage debt. An injunction was accordingly granted. But after various proceedings on both sides, a decree was entered, on the 6th of February, 1869, which ordered that the injunction be dissolved, and directed a sale by the Bradleys, the trustees of the property in controversy, according to the deed of trust, and the bringing of the proceeds into court to abide further orders.
From this decree an appeal was prayed in open court by the railroad company, and subsequently an appeal bond was filed in the court, and approved by one of the judges. But it did not appear directly that an appeal was allowed.
As already stated, the decree dissolving the injunction and directing a sale, was entered on the 6th of February, 1869. A petition for the suspension of this order of dissolution was filed, by the secretary of the railroad company, on the same day; a motion to the same effect was made in behalf of the Department of War, on the 15th of February, and a petition to open the decree was filed on the 13th of February, by one of the stockholders of the company.
On the 6th of March, and during the term at which the decree was rendered, a motion to rescind was made in behalf of the railroad company, and on the 13th of that month was heard and denied.
On the 20th the appeal was prayed by the railroad company, and on the 23d the bond of appeal was approved and filed.
Upon this state of facts two motions were now made in this court,—one, in behalf of the appellees, to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction; the other, in behalf of the appellants, for a supersedeas.
Secondly, that there was no allowance of appeal.
In support of the motion for supersedeas, that the appeal bond was approved, and filed within ten days after the decree.
Messrs. Riddle and Brent, for the appellants.
Mr. J. H. Bradley, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
We think that the decree entered on the 6th of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rector v. United States
...us the case is more akin to Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 12 L. Ed. 404; Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342 19 L. Ed. 94; Railroad Co. v. Bradleys, Id. 7 Wall. 575 19 L. Ed. 274; Hill v. Railroad Co., 140 U. S. 52, 11 S. Ct. 690 35 L. Ed. 331; and Grant v. Railroad Co. C. C. A. 50 F. 795, than to ......
-
Blaffer v. New Orleans Water Supply Co.
... ... BURNS, ... District Judge ... The New ... Orleans Water Supply Company moves to dismiss the appeal in ... this case upon the following grounds: First, the appeal was ... controversy in a suit of the Indiana Southern Railroad ... Company v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance Company, filed ... his petition in that suit ... ...
-
Watson v. Mayberry
... ... authority in equity cases. Memphis v ... Brown, 94 U.S. 715, 24 L.Ed. 244; Railroad ... Co. v. Bradleys, 74 U.S. 575, 7 Wall. 575, 19 ... L.Ed. 274; Brockett v. Brockett, 43 U.S ... ...
-
Northwestern Public Service Co. v. Pfeifer
...P. R. Co. v. Murphy, 111 U. S. 488, 4 S. Ct. 497, 28 L. Ed. 492; Memphis v. Brown, 94 U. S. 715, 24 L. Ed. 244; Washington, G. & A. R. Co. v. Bradley, 7 Wall. 575, 19 L. Ed. 274; Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L. Ed. 251; Payne v. Garth, 285 F. 301, this This motion was "entertained" ......