Caldwell Vs. Texas

Caldwell vs Texas

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-25-1891

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/86703

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/86703
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: May-25-1891
Case Number: 141 U.S. 209
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

Caldwell

Respondent

Texas

Excerpt

.....ground that no notice had been given of the motion to dismiss. the record here showed that a motion to advance and a motion to dismiss were submitted on december 15, 1890, and the order in relation to the latter motion stated that it was submitted on the record and printed arguments of counsel for both parties. an extended printed argument on the merits had been previously filed on behalf of plaintiff in error, as well as the written consent of his counsel that the cause might be advanced, but from the affidavits accompanying the application for rehearing it appeared that, through some inadvertence, the notice of the motion to dismiss had not in fact been given. we therefore directed the judgment to be vacated and notice to be served, returnable on the second monday in april, the motion to be then considered upon such additional printed briefs as might be presented. this was accordingly done, but no further briefs were filed, and on april 14, suggestion of illness of counsel was made, and the time twice enlarged. on the 11th of may, the case was taken on resubmission, and, a request having been made that the cause be continued to next term or that other counsel be assigned to represent plaintiff in error, other counsel has examined the record and filed an additional brief. page 141 u. s. 211 mr. chief justice fuller delivered the opinion (including the above statement) of the court. we have again considered the case, but see no reason to change the conclusion heretofore announced. the writ of error will therefore be dismissed.

Full Judgment

Caldwell v. Texas - 141 U.S. 209 (1891)
U.S. Supreme Court Caldwell v. Texas, 141 U.S. 209 (1891)

Caldwell v. Texas

No. 1541

Submitted May 11, 1891

Decided May 25, 1891

141 U.S. 209

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

SYLLABUS

There having been some irregularity in the submission of this case on the 15th of December, 1590, the court allows a resubmission, and an additional brief is filed at its request, and it now adheres to its former decision, dismissing the writ for want of jurisdiction. 137 U. S. 137 U.S. 692.

The case, as stated by the Court, was as follows:

The writ of error in this case was dismissed January 12, 1891. Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692 . Plaintiff in error applied for a rehearing upon the ground that no notice had been given of the motion to dismiss. The record here showed that a motion to advance and a motion to dismiss were submitted on December 15, 1890, and the order in relation to the latter motion stated that it was submitted on the record and printed arguments of counsel for both parties.

An extended printed argument on the merits had been previously filed on behalf of plaintiff in error, as well as the written consent of his counsel that the cause might be advanced, but from the affidavits accompanying the application for rehearing it appeared that, through some inadvertence, the notice of the motion to dismiss had not in fact been given. We therefore directed the judgment to be vacated and notice to be served, returnable on the second Monday in April, the motion to be then considered upon such additional printed briefs as might be presented.

This was accordingly done, but no further briefs were filed, and on April 14, suggestion of illness of counsel was made, and the time twice enlarged. On the 11th of May, the case was taken on resubmission, and, a request having been made that the cause be continued to next term or that other counsel be assigned to represent plaintiff in error, other counsel has examined the record and filed an additional brief.

Page 141 U. S. 211

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion (including the above statement) of the Court.

We have again considered the case, but see no reason to change the conclusion heretofore announced. The writ of error will therefore be

Dismissed.

Same Parties Caldwell vs Texas Same Subject Land Acquisition