Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

DUGGER v. TAYLOE. SAME

No assignments of error being made in these cases, and there being no appearance for plaintiffs in error, the Court affirms the judgments below under Rule 21, § 4, 108 U.S. 585, for want of due prosecution of the writs of error.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

These are writs of error brought for the review of judgments of the Supreme Court of Alabama. No assignment of errors was returned with the writ in either of the cases, as required by § 997 of the Revised Statutes. No counsel has appeared for the plaintiffs in error, but the cases have both been submitted by the defendants in error on briefs, without any specification of errors by the plaintiffs, as required by Rule 21, § 2, 108 U.S. 585. We, therefore, affirm the judgment in each case, under § 4 of the same rule, 108 U.S. 585, for want of a due prosecution of the writ of error.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DUGGER v. TAYLOE
(Apr 18, 1887)