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.

Brandies Vs. Cochrane

Brandies vs Cochrane

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1881
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84248

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
105 U.S. 262
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

Brandies

Respondent

Cochrane

Excerpt

brandies v. cochrane - 105 u.s. 262 (1881) u.s. supreme court brandies v. cochrane, 105 u.s. 262 (1881) brandies v. cochrane 105 u.s. 262 motion to dismiss appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the northern district of illinois syllabus an appeal may be perfected without an order formally allowing it. it is in legal effect allowed when the circuit judge takes the security and signs the citation. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this is a motion to dismiss because the appeal was not taken within two years after the entry of the decree. it appears from the record that the decree was entered on the 2d of august, 1879, and on the same day the complainants prayed an appeal, which was allowed upon their giving bond according to law. no bond was ever given under this allowance, and the case was not docketed here at the october term, 1879. on the first of august, 1881, the circuit judge approved a bond for an appeal from the decree and signed a citation. the bond was on the same day filed with the clerk, and the citation served on the 18th of august. on the 8th of october, the circuit court entered an order allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc as of august 1. the case was regularly docketed in this court on the 13th of october. the circuit judge, by taking the security and signing the citation, allowed an appeal. no formal order of allowance was necessary. sage v. railroad company, 96 u. s. 712 ; draper v. davis, 102 u. s. 370 . the appeal was therefore taken in time. the order of october 8th was not required to give it effect. motion denied.

Full Judgment

Brandies v. Cochrane - 105 U.S. 262 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U.S. 262 (1881)

Brandies v. Cochrane

105 U.S. 262

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SYLLABUS

An appeal may be perfected without an order formally allowing it. It is in legal effect allowed when the circuit judge takes the security and signs the citation.

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

This is a motion to dismiss because the appeal was not taken within two years after the entry of the decree.

It appears from the record that the decree was entered on the 2d of August, 1879, and on the same day the complainants prayed an appeal, which was allowed upon their giving bond according to law. No bond was ever given under this allowance, and the case was not docketed here at the October Term, 1879. On the first of August, 1881, the circuit judge approved a bond for an appeal from the decree and signed a citation. The bond was on the same day filed with the clerk, and the citation served on the 18th of August. On the 8th of October, the Circuit Court entered an order allowing the appeal nunc pro tunc as of August 1. The case was regularly docketed in this court on the 13th of October.

The circuit judge, by taking the security and signing the citation, allowed an appeal. No formal order of allowance was necessary. Sage v. Railroad Company, 96 U. S. 712 ; Draper v. Davis, 102 U. S. 370 . The appeal was therefore taken in time. The order of October 8th was not required to give it effect.

Motion denied.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial