Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Peck Vs. Sanderson

Peck vs Sanderson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1855
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/80556

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
59 U.S. 42
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Peck

Advocate Mr. Wahr

Respondent

Sanderson

Excerpt

peck v. sanderson - 59 u.s. 42 (1855) u.s. supreme court peck v. sanderson, 59 u.s. 18 how. 42 42 (1855) peck v. sanderson 59 u.s. (18 how.) 42 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the eastern district of pennsylvania syllabus this court cannot grant a motion for the rehearing of a cause which has been transmitted to the court below. this case was argued and decided at the last term, and is reported in 17 howard. mr. rush, of counsel for the appellee, now stated to the court that a petition from the appellee was on file, verified by affidavit, and moved for a rehearing, which was opposed by mr. wahr, counsel for the appellant. mr. justice mc lean delivered the opinion of court. this case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the eastern district of pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by mr. rush, counsel for the appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was prevented by sickness from attending the court at the time of the hearing. it is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a failure in the mail, was unknown to the court. in the above case, the brief of the counsel was before the court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have changed the result. but in the case of browder v. mcarthur, 7 wheat. 58, it was held that this court cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted to the court below, and in the case of washington bridge company v. stewart, 3 how. 413, the same principle was recognized. the motion is overruled.

Full Judgment

Peck v. Sanderson - 59 U.S. 42 (1855)
U.S. Supreme Court Peck v. Sanderson, 59 U.S. 18 How. 42 42 (1855)

Peck v. Sanderson

59 U.S. (18 How.) 42

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SYLLABUS

This Court cannot grant a motion for the rehearing of a cause which has been transmitted to the court below.

This case was argued and decided at the last term, and is reported in 17 Howard.

Mr. Rush, of counsel for the appellee, now stated to the Court that a petition from the appellee was on file, verified by affidavit, and moved for a rehearing, which was opposed by Mr. Wahr, counsel for the appellant.

MR. JUSTICE Mc LEAN delivered the opinion of court.

This case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by Mr. Rush, counsel for the appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was prevented by sickness from attending the Court at the time of the hearing.

It is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a failure in the mail, was unknown to the Court.

In the above case, the brief of the counsel was before the Court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have changed the result.

But in the case of Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, it was held that this Court cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted to the court below, and in the case of Washington Bridge Company v. Stewart, 3 How. 413, the same principle was recognized. The motion is

Overruled.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial