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.

Whitney Vs. Cook

Whitney vs Cook

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1878
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83637

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
99 U.S. 607
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Whitney

Respondent

Cook

Excerpt

whitney v. cook - 99 u.s. 607 (1878) u.s. supreme court whitney v. cook, 99 u.s. 607 (1878) whitney v. cook 99 u.s. 607 error to the circuit court of the united states for the southern district of mississippi syllabus 1. under amended rule 6, the plaintiff in error or the appellant may, with a motion to dismiss the writ of error or the appeal, unite a motion to affirm the judgment or the decree, but where there is no color of right to a dismissal, the case being clearly within the jurisdiction of this court, a motion to affirm merely will not be sustained. 2. the court declares that it will by the assessment of damages suppress the evil of resorting to its jurisdiction upon frivolous grounds. motion to affirm the judgment of the court below. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this is a motion to affirm only. our amended rule 6 allows a motion to affirm to be united with a motion to dismiss. this implies that there shall appear on the record at least some color of right to a dismissal. that is not pretended in this case. we are therefore compelled to deny the motion. our experience teaches that the only way to discourage frivolous appeals and writs of error is by the use of our power to award damages, and we think this a proper case in which to say that hereafter more attention will be given to that subject, and the rule enforced both according to its letter and spirit. parties should not be subjected to the delay of proceedings for review in this court without reasonable cause, and our power to make compensation to some extent for the loss occasioned by an unwarranted delay ought not to be overlooked.

Full Judgment

Whitney v. Cook - 99 U.S. 607 (1878)
U.S. Supreme Court Whitney v. Cook, 99 U.S. 607 (1878)

Whitney v. Cook

99 U.S. 607

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

SYLLABUS

1. Under amended Rule 6, the plaintiff in error or the appellant may, with a motion to dismiss the writ of error or the appeal, unite a motion to affirm the judgment or the decree, but where there is no color of right to a dismissal, the case being clearly within the jurisdiction of this Court, a motion to affirm merely will not be sustained.

2. The Court declares that it will by the assessment of damages suppress the evil of resorting to its jurisdiction upon frivolous grounds.

Motion to affirm the judgment of the court below.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a motion to affirm only. Our amended Rule 6 allows a motion to affirm to be united with a motion to dismiss. This implies that there shall appear on the record at least some color of right to a dismissal. That is not pretended in this case. We are therefore compelled to deny the motion. Our experience teaches that the only way to discourage frivolous appeals and writs of error is by the use of our power to award damages, and we think this a proper case in which to say that hereafter more attention will be given to that subject, and the rule enforced both according to its letter and spirit. Parties should not be subjected to the delay of proceedings for review in this Court without reasonable cause, and our power to make compensation to some extent for the loss occasioned by an unwarranted delay ought not to be overlooked.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial