Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 U.S. 556

Micas v. Williams

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 1, 1881

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1881-10

Held: that although the grounds for dismissal he removed by a further showing, the motion to affirm will he granted, when it is manifest that the writ was sued out for delay only. Motion to dismiss a writ’of error .to the Circuit Court>of the United -States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, with which is united a motion to affirm under -Rule 6, par. 5. Mr. Joseph P. Horndr in support of the motion.

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 7–0 · Decided 1881-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1939

3 state decisions

90188118901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Where the record is such as to furnish a sufficient color of right to the dismissal - of the writ of error to justify the court in entertaining with a motion to dismiss a motion' io affirm under Rule 6,— Held, that although the grounds for dismissal he removed by a further showing, the motion to affirm will he granted, when it is manifest that the writ was sued out for delay only.

¶2Motion to dismiss a writ’of error .to the Circuit Court>of the United -States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, with which is united a motion to affirm under -Rule 6, par. 5.

¶3Mr. Joseph P. Horndr in support of the motion.

¶4Mr. T.homas J. Durant, contra.

¶5*557Mr. Chief Justice Waite:

¶6delivered the opinion of the court.

¶7The affidavits which have been' filed by the plaintiff in error,, in opposition to'these, motions, are probably sufficient ¡to establish the: fact that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied ; but on-, looking into the record we are entirely satisfied the writ was taken for delay only.' No assignment'of errors has been annexed to or returned with the writ, as required by sect. 997 of the Revised Statutes; and every question presented by the bill of exceptions or suggested upon the argument appears to us so frivolous as to make it improper- .to keep the case here for any further consideration. There was' on the record, as it stood when these motions were made, at least sufficient, color of right to a dismissal to justify us in entertaining with it a motion to affirm in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6, par. 5.

¶8Motion to affirm granted.

/104/us/556 · .json · Public domain