United States v. Crusell
79 U.S. 175 (1870)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Crusell, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 175 175 (1870)

United States v. Crusell

79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 175

APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF AN

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

1. A continuance granted on an appeal from the Court of Claims, there having been a motion made there by the appellant, and yet undisposed of, for a new trial on the ground of after-acquired evidence. But the Court declares that it must not be understood as giving any sanction to the idea that indefinite postponement of final hearing and determination can be obtained by repeated motions for continuance here.

2. The court below, not this Court, must determine whether the application for a new trial is seasonably made.

This was an application by Mr. Bristow, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Hill, the Assistant Attorney General, in behalf of the government for the continuance of an appeal from the Court of Claims founded upon the fact that evidence had been newly discovered on which a motion in behalf of the United States had been made for a new trial under the Act

Page 79 U. S. 176

of June 25, 1868. By that act, the Court of Claims is authorized

"at any time, while any suit or claim is pending before or on appeal from said court or within two years next after the final disposition of any such suit or claim,"

to grant a new trial on motion of the United States.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the case of United States v. Ayres,* this Court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims when the motion was made upon the sole ground that a motion for a new trial had been made by the United States and was pending in that court, but afterwards dismissed the same appeal when a new trial had been granted. We are satisfied with the rulings then announced, and think that the spirit of them requires us to allow the continuance now asked for. We must not be understood, however, as giving any sanction to the idea that indefinite postponement of final hearing and determination can be obtained by repeated motions for continuance here.

The objection that more than two hears had elapsed after judgment in the Court of Claims before the motion for new trial was made should be addressed to that court in opposition to the motion. Its decision, whatever it may be, can be reviewed here.

Continuance granted.

* <|6 Wall. 608|>6 Wall. 608.

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.