Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/131/392/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/131/392/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Radford v. Folsom, 131 U.S. 392 (1888)
Radford v. Folsom
No. 1014
Submitted November 5, 1888
Decided November 26, 1888
131 U.S. 392
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
Syllabus
The final decree in a suit in equity, entered October 10, 1885, adjudged and decreed that there was due to the administratrix of J. F. a sum named in the decree, and that if, within ninety days from that date, the court should be satisfied that a certain other sum named as paid for the purchase of notes, etc., had inured to the benefit of J. F. or his estate, that sum should be credited on the amount so decreed to be paid. Held that for the purpose of an appeal, the date of the decree was October 10, 1885.
This was a motion made by the administratrix of Jeremiah Folsom, deceased, to dismiss an appeal. The reasons for the dismissal, given in the motion were:
"That the decree appealed from was made and entered of record in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa, Western Division, on the 10th day of October, 1885;"
"That the appeal in the above entitled cause was not taken until the 30th day of December, 1887, more than two years after the entry of the decree, as aforesaid. "
PER CURIAM.
This case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
