Power Vs. Baker

Power vs Baker

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Dec-15-1884

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84671

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/84671
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Dec-15-1884
Case Number: 112 U.S. 710
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Power

Respondent

Baker

Excerpt

.....printed copies of so much of the record as will enable the court to act understandingly, without reference to the transcript on file. this was a motion to vacate a supersedeas. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. neither the record in this case nor the part thereof on which this motion depends has been printed, and the appellees have neglected to state in their motion papers the facts as presented by the transcript on which they rely. an affidavit has been filed to the effect that the appellees were not served with a page 112 u. s. 711 citation, nor with a notice of an application for the allowance of an appeal, until after the expiration of sixty days, sundays exclusive, from the time of the rendition of the decree appealed from. in the same affidavit it is stated, however, that the proctor of the appellees was informed that an appeal bond had been presented to the circuit court for approval within the sixty days. it is also stated that on the 10th of january, 1884, an order allowing an appeal was entered nunc pro tunc as of the date of the presentation of the bond. an affidavit filed by the appellants shows that on the day the bond was presented to the circuit court, it was approved, allowed, and filed in the cause. as upon this motion it rests on the appellees to show that the bond was not accepted in time, and that has not been done, the motion to vacate the supersedeas is denied. in this connection, we take occasion to say that motions of this kind, made before the record is printed, must be accompanied by a statement of the facts on which they rest, agreed to by the parties, or supported by printed copies of so much of the record as will enable us to act understandingly, without reference to the transcript on file. motion denied.

Full Judgment

Power v. Baker - 112 U.S. 710 (1884)
U.S. Supreme Court Power v. Baker, 112 U.S. 710 (1884)

Power v. Baker

Submitted November 21, 1884

Decided December 15, 1884

112 U.S. 710

I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

SYLLABUS

Motions to vacate a supersedeas and other motions of that kind made before the record is printed must be accompanied by a statement of the facts on which they rest, agreed to by the parties, or supported by printed copies of so much of the record as will enable the Court to act understandingly, without reference to the transcript on file.

This was a motion to vacate a supersedeas.

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

Neither the record in this case nor the part thereof on which this motion depends has been printed, and the appellees have neglected to state in their motion papers the facts as presented by the transcript on which they rely. An affidavit has been filed to the effect that the appellees were not served with a

Page 112 U. S. 711

citation, nor with a notice of an application for the allowance of an appeal, until after the expiration of sixty days, Sundays exclusive, from the time of the rendition of the decree appealed from. In the same affidavit it is stated, however, that the proctor of the appellees was informed that an appeal bond had been presented to the Circuit Court for approval within the sixty days. It is also stated that on the 10th of January, 1884, an order allowing an appeal was entered nunc pro tunc as of the date of the presentation of the bond. An affidavit filed by the appellants shows that on the day the bond was presented to the circuit court, it was approved, allowed, and filed in the cause. As upon this motion it rests on the appellees to show that the bond was not accepted in time, and that has not been done, the motion to vacate the supersedeas is denied. In this connection, we take occasion to say that motions of this kind, made before the record is printed, must be accompanied by a statement of the facts on which they rest, agreed to by the parties, or supported by printed copies of so much of the record as will enable us to act understandingly, without reference to the transcript on file.

Motion denied.

Same Parties Power vs Baker Same Subject Education