Categories: 1803

Lloyd v. Alexander, 5 U.S. 365 (1803)

5 U.S. 365
1 Cranch 365
2 L.Ed. 137

LLOYD
v.
ALEXANDER.

February Term, 1803

MARSHALL, Chief Justice.

The law respecting the thirty days notice on a writ of error, and the ten days allowed for filing it, was predicated upon the existing state of things at the time of passing the act; at which time there was no circuit court whose term would not be finished more than forty days before the sitting of the supreme court.

The times of the session of the courts have been altered, but no alteration has been made in the law respecting the thirty days notice, which makes it difficult to form a rule in the case.

At present, if the citation has not been served thirty days, the court will not take up the cause until the thirty days have expired, unless the defendant in error shall appear.

A citation not served is as no citation.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 5 U.S. 365

Recent Posts

WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT, 152 Eng. Rep. 402 (Ex. 1842).

WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT In the Exchequer, June 6, 1842. Reported in 10 Meeson & Welsby,…

1 week ago

YU v. POZNIAK-RICE, Cal. App. No. B337415 (July 21, 2025)

Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

4 months ago

WING INFLATABLES, INC. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, Cal. App. No. A173263 (July 21, 2025)

Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

4 months ago

NASRALLAH v. BARR, 590 U.S. 573 (2020)

140 S.Ct. 1683 (2020)590 U.S. 573 Nidal Khalid NASRALLAH, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney…

7 months ago

THOLE v. U.S. BANK N.A., 590 U.S. 538

140 S.Ct. 1615 (2020)590 US 538207 L. Ed. 2d 85 James J. THOLE, et al.,…

7 months ago

BANISTER v. DAVIS, 590 U.S. 504

140 S.Ct. 1698 (2020)590 U.S. 504 Gregory Dean BANISTER, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas…

7 months ago