Judges: Marshall
Filed Date: 3/18/1805
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Supreme Court of United States.
C. Lee, for the petitioner, contended, that this was a final decree as to Ray, and cited 2 Fowler's Exchequer Practice, 195, to show, that such a decree would, in England, be considered such a final decree as would authorise an appeal.
March 5.
MARSHALL, Ch. J.
We can do nothing without seeing the record, and the papers offered cannot be considered by us as a record.
*180 The court, however, is of opinion, that a decree for a sale under a mortgage, is such a final decree as may be appealed from. We suppose, that when the court below understands that to be our opinion, it will allow an appeal, if it be a case to which this opinion applies.
Railroad Co. v. Swasey ( 1875 )
Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin ( 1889 )
McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. ( 1892 )
Rector v. United States ( 1927 )
City of Boston v. Boston Edison Company, City of Boston v. ... ( 1958 )
Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co. v. Simmons ( 1887 )
Grant v. Phoenix Ins. Co. ( 1882 )
Citibank, N. A. v. Data Lease Financial Corporation ( 1981 )
John Perkins v. Edward F. Fourniquet and Wife, and Martin W.... ( 1848 )
leslie-taylor-and-kevin-taylor-minors-by-wilbert-taylor-and-hallie ( 1961 )
Bronson v. Railroad Co. ( 1863 )
Humiston v. Stainthorp ( 1865 )
Horace C. Silsby v. Elisha Foote ( 1858 )
Chicago & Vincennes Railroad v. Fosdick ( 1882 )