Gay Vs. Parpart

Gay vs Parpart

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1879

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83793

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/83793
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1879
Case Number: 101 U.S. 391
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gay

Respondent

Parpart

Excerpt

.....to make his plea good, shall answer all damages and costs." the condition of the bond in this case is that the appellants "shall duly prosecute their said appeal with effect, and, moreover, pay the amount page 101 u. s. 392 of costs and damages rendered and to be rendered in case the decree shall be affirmed in said supreme court." the object of the statutory requirement undoubtedly is to secure to the opposite party his damages and costs in case the judgment or decree shall not be reversed, and that, we think, is the legal effect of this bond. if, on the final disposition of a writ of error or appeal, the judgment or decree brought under review is not substantially reversed, it is affirmed and the writ of error or appeal has not been prosecuted with effect. in our opinion, the language of the bond covers fully all the requirements of the statute. the motions to dismiss the appeal and vacate the supersedeas are therefore overruled. the appellee has coupled with a motion to dismiss a motion under rule 6, to affirm because it is manifest that the appeal was taken for delay only. clearly this is not a case for the application of that rule. motions denied.

Full Judgment

Gay v. Parpart - 101 U.S. 391 (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court Gay v. Parpart, 101 U.S. 391 (1879)

Gay v. Parpart

101 U.S. 391

MOTION TO VACATE SUPERSEDEAS AND DISMISS APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SYLLABUS

1. Where an appeal has been taken to this Court, the condition of the bond that the appellants

"shall duly prosecute their said appeal with effect, and, moreover, pay the amount of costs and damages rendered and to be rendered in case the decree shall be affirmed in said court"

meets all the requirements of Sec. 1000 Rev. Stat.

2. In such a case, the Court will not entertain a motion by the appellee to affirm the decree appealed from.

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

These motions are founded on an alleged defect in the form of the condition of the bond. By sec. 1000 Rev. Stat., the security to be taken on a writ of error or an appeal, where the writ or the appeal is a supersedeas and stays execution, must be

"that the plaintiff in error or the appellant shall prosecute his writ or appeal to effect, and, if he fails to make his plea good, shall answer all damages and costs."

The condition of the bond in this case is that the appellants

"shall duly prosecute their said appeal with effect, and, moreover, pay the amount

Page 101 U. S. 392

of costs and damages rendered and to be rendered in case the decree shall be affirmed in said Supreme Court."

The object of the statutory requirement undoubtedly is to secure to the opposite party his damages and costs in case the judgment or decree shall not be reversed, and that, we think, is the legal effect of this bond. If, on the final disposition of a writ of error or appeal, the judgment or decree brought under review is not substantially reversed, it is affirmed and the writ of error or appeal has not been prosecuted with effect. In our opinion, the language of the bond covers fully all the requirements of the statute. The motions to dismiss the appeal and vacate the supersedeas are therefore overruled.

The appellee has coupled with a motion to dismiss a motion under Rule 6, to affirm because it is manifest that the appeal was taken for delay only. Clearly this is not a case for the application of that rule.

Motions denied.

Same Parties Gay vs Parpart Same Subject Land Acquisition