Hampton v. Rouse, (1872)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number:
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 18, 1872
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 80 U.S. 187 (_) 13 Wall. 187 HAMPTON v. ROUSE. Supreme Court of United States. *188 Mr. P. Phillips, in support of the motion; Mr. W.W. Boyce, contra. The CHIEF JUSTICE: It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join; and that the omission of one or more, without such proceeding, is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed. [ ] The motion in the present case must, therefore, be GRANTED. NOTES [ ] Williams v. Bank of the United States
Summary: 80 U.S. 187 (_) 13 Wall. 187 HAMPTON v. ROUSE. Supreme Court of United States. *188 Mr. P. Phillips, in support of the motion; Mr. W.W. Boyce, contra. The CHIEF JUSTICE: It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join; and that the omission of one or more, without such proceeding, is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed. [ ] The motion in the present case must, therefore, be GRANTED. NOTES [ ] Williams v. Bank of the United States,..
More
80 U.S. 187 (____)
13 Wall. 187
HAMPTON
v.
ROUSE.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. P. Phillips, in support of the motion; Mr. W.W. Boyce, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE:
It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join; and that the omission of one or more, without such proceeding, is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed.[] The motion in the present case must, therefore, be
GRANTED.
NOTES
[] Williams v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheaton, 414; Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Peters, 399; The Protector, 11 Wallace, 82.
Source: CourtListener
