Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 U.S. 364

Sherman

Supreme Court of the United States

January 23, 1888.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1888-01-23

ORIGINAL. in Sherman v. Grinnell, 123 U. S. 679, after the announcement' of that decision presented to this court his petition as follows: To the Honorable, the Justices of the Supreme Cov/rt of the United States: The petition of Eoger M. Sherman respectfully represents: On the 28th day of October, 1885, in the city court of New York, in the Southern District of New York, ap action was commenced by the service of a summons and complaint, by Irving Grinnell and George S.…

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Kirkpatrick · Ex parte Bradley · Railroad Company v. Wiswall

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Office Of A Judge”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Decided 1888-01-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), Freytag v. Commissioner (1991)

26 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

13018881890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

[Statement of Case from pages 364-367 intentionally omitted]

Roger M. Sherman, pro se.

WAITE, C. J.

¶1

This motion is denied. The object of the petitioner is to compel the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York to set aside an order granting a motion to remand a suit against him, which he had caused to be emoved from a state court, and to proceed to a rehearing, on the ground that at the former hearing the court did not have before it, and did not see, the complaint in the case, on which he relied to show his right to a removal. The petition makes it apparent that the motion was submitted by both parties, and decided on the papers then furnished. If, in point of fact, the complaint was not included among those papers, and it had been omitted by mistake, a rehearing might have been granted, in the discretion of the court, upon a showing to that effect; but this court has no power to require that court to do so by mandamus.

/124/us/364 · .json · Public domain