Search Supreme Court Cases

THOMAS & CO. V. WOOLRIDGE, 90 U. S. 283 (1874)

U.S. Supreme Court

Thomas & Co. v. Woolridge, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 283 283 (1874)

Thomas & Co. v. Woolridge

90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 283



1. The Court will not, generally speaking, refuse to hear a motion to dismiss before the term to which, in regular order, the record ought to be returned, if the record be printed and the rules of court about motions of that sort have been complied with by the party making the motion.

2. Though a failure of the party making a motion to dismiss to send a copy of his brief to the counsel of the other side within the time required by the amendment made at December Term, 1871, to Rule 6, would entitle such counsel of the other side to ask to postpone the hearing in order to give time for further preparation, yet if he have himself before the hearing filed a full argument upon the merits of the motion, the failure of his opposing counsel to have complied with the amendment to the rule would hardly warrant an objection that the notice of the motion was insufficient.

Page 90 U. S. 284

3. A motion to dismiss an appeal in equity may properly be made by one of several appellees, he being the only one who has any interest in the suit and the only one who filed an answer below.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: THOMAS & CO. V. WOOLRIDGE, 90 U. S. 283 (1874)

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.