Stewart Vs. Masterson

Stewart vs Masterson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-30-1888

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/86027

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/86027
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jan-30-1888
Case Number: 124 U.S. 493
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Stewart

Respondent

Masterson

Excerpt

.....filing of a new bond, on motion to dismiss for want of filing an appeal bond, held that the motion should be granted unless appellant, before a day fixed by the order, should file a bond with the clerk of this court, with sureties to the satisfaction of the justice allotted to the circuit. brown v. mcconnell, ante, 124 u. s. 489 , followed. motion to dismiss. the case is stated in the opinion of the court. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. the facts on which this motion rests are these: the decree from which the appeal was taken was rendered november 7, page 124 u. s. 494 1884, and contained on its face the allowance of an appeal to this court. that appeal was returnable to october term, 1885, which began october 12 of that year. it does not appear that any bond was approved during the term at which the decree was rendered, but one was approved october 10, 1885, which was before the beginning of the return-term. a citation was signed november 2, 1885, after that term began, requiring the appellee to appear in this court on the second monday in october, 1886. this citation was served february 17, 1886, but the case was not docketed in this court until june 11, 1886, which was after our term of 1885 ended, but before that of 1886 began. the bond approved october 10, 1885, must be deemed to have been taken under the appeal allowed in open court, and, as that appeal became inoperative by reason of the failure to docket it here during the term of 1885, the only question we have now to determine is whether the signing of the citation november 2, 1885, was in effect the allowance of a new appeal, returnable at the term of 1886. we have just decided in brown v. mcconnell, ante, 124 u. s. 489 , that it was, but as the bond which was executed october 10, 1885, became inoperative by the failure to docket the first appeal in time, we now order that this appeal be dismissed unless the.....

Full Judgment

Stewart v. Masterson - 124 U.S. 493 (1888)
U.S. Supreme Court Stewart v. Masterson, 124 U.S. 493 (1888)

Stewart v. Masterson

Submitted January 9, 1888

Decided January 30, 1888

124 U.S. 493

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SYLLABUS

The signing of a citation after the expiration of the term to which an appeal taken with security was returnable, and after the commencement of the following term, and without taking new security, is in effect the granting of a new appeal returnable at the next term of court thereafter.

An appeal docketed in this Court after a term ends and before the next following term begins is docketed as of the next following term.

An appeal bond having become inoperative by reason of failure to docket the appeal at the next term of this Court, and a new appeal having been granted without the filing of a new bond, on motion to dismiss for want of filing an appeal bond, held that the motion should be granted unless appellant, before a day fixed by the order, should file a bond with the clerk of this Court, with sureties to the satisfaction of the Justice allotted to the circuit. Brown v. McConnell, ante, 124 U. S. 489 , followed.

Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

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

The facts on which this motion rests are these:

The decree from which the appeal was taken was rendered November 7,

Page 124 U. S. 494

1884, and contained on its face the allowance of an appeal to this Court. That appeal was returnable to October term, 1885, which began October 12 of that year. It does not appear that any bond was approved during the term at which the decree was rendered, but one was approved October 10, 1885, which was before the beginning of the return-term. A citation was signed November 2, 1885, after that term began, requiring the appellee to appear in this Court on the second Monday in October, 1886. This citation was served February 17, 1886, but the case was not docketed in this Court until June 11, 1886, which was after our term of 1885 ended, but before that of 1886 began.

The bond approved October 10, 1885, must be deemed to have been taken under the appeal allowed in open court, and, as that appeal became inoperative by reason of the failure to docket it here during the term of 1885, the only question we have now to determine is whether the signing of the citation November 2, 1885, was in effect the allowance of a new appeal, returnable at the term of 1886. We have just decided in Brown v. McConnell, ante, 124 U. S. 489 , that it was, but as the bond which was executed October 10, 1885, became inoperative by the failure to docket the first appeal in time, we now

Order that this appeal be dismissed unless the appellant shall, on or before the nineteenth day of March next, file with the clerk of this Court a bond in the penal sum of $500 conditioned according to law for the purposes of the appeal, with sureties to the satisfaction of the Justice of this Court allotted to the Fifth Circuit.

Same Parties Stewart vs Masterson Same Subject Education