Hogan v. Ross
52 U.S. 294 (1850)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hogan v. Ross, 52 U.S. 11 How. 294 294 (1850)

Hogan v. Ross

52 U.S. (11 How.) 294

Syllabus

Where a case was dismissed by this Court for want of a citation, and the plaintiff in error sued out another writ and applied to this Court for a supersedeas to stay execution in the court below, the application cannot be granted.

This Court is not authorized to grant a supersedeas unless the writ of error has been sued out within ten days after the rendition of the judgment, and in conformity with the provisions of the twenty-third section of the act of 1789.

The cases of Stockton and Moore v. Bishop, 2 How. 74, and Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640, explained.

The following motion and affidavit were filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, viz.: :

"This case was depending before this Court at its last term upon a writ of error, operating as a supersedeas, and was then dismissed because the record did not show that a citation had been issued and served on the defendant in error. Since the last term of this Court, the plaintiffs have sued out another writ of error, executed another bond, filed a complete record of the

Page 52 U. S. 295

case &c., but they are exposed to execution on the judgment in the court below; they therefore move the court for a supersedeas to stay all further proceedings on the judgment below."

"W. S. FEATHERSTON"

"R. DAVIS"

"Attorneys for Plaintiffs in error"

"Personally appeared before me, Wm. T. Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, Winfield S. Featherston, who, being duly sworn, says that he is informed by R. Davis, of counsel for Smith Hogan et al. in the court below, that an execution has been issued on the judgment in this case, now before this Court for revision and correction, from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi. That said execution is now in the hands of the Marshal for the said Northern District of Mississippi, to be levied on the property of said Smith Hogan et al. and returned to the next June term of said district court. This affiant further states, that he believes said information to be true."

"Sworn to in open court, this 11 February, 1851."

"WM. THOS. CARROLL."

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.