Search Supreme Court Cases

NASH V. HARSHMAN, 149 U. S. 263 (1893)

U.S. Supreme Court

Nash v. Harshman, 149 U.S. 263 (1893)

Nash v. Harshman

No. 957

Submitted April 17, 1893

Decided May 1, 1893

149 U.S. 263


This case is dismissed upon the authority of Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262.

This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Logan County, Ohio, to foreclose a mortgage made by Nash to Harshman of real estate then owned by him, and conveyed by him to one Dupee after the execution of the mortgage. Nash and Dupee were both made defendants. After issue joined, the cause was removed to the circuit court of the United States on the defendants' motion on the ground of local prejudice. Trial was had there which resulted in a decree, December 4, 1890, against Nash for the payment of the debt, and against Dupee for the sale of the land on failure of Nash to make the payment within ten days from the decree. On the 11th of December, Nash took an appeal to this Court, which was allowed, and a receiver was appointed to take possession of the estate and hold and manage it pending the appeal. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment, assigning the following reasons therefor:

Page 149 U. S. 264

"1. No proper bond for appealing said cause to this court has been given, and none was required by said circuit court to be given, but in allowing this appeal, said court assumed to excuse and dispense with the bond required by law, whereby the allowance of appeal is rendered invalid and this court acquires no jurisdiction thereby."

"2. This appeal is not taken and prosecuted by the party against whom the decree of the court below was rendered."

"3. It is apparent upon an inspection of the record that said appeal is frivolous and utterly groundless, and was taken for the purpose of delay merely."

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: NASH V. HARSHMAN, 149 U. S. 263 (1893)

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.