YEATON V. LENOX, 33 U. S. 123 (1834)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 33 U. S. 123

U.S. Supreme Court

Yeaton v. Lenox, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 123 123 (1834)

Yeaton v. Lenox

33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 123


A party may, after an appeal has been discussed for informality, if within five years, bring up the case again.

The plaintiffs united severally in a suit, claiming the return of money paid by them on distinct promissory notes given to the defendants. They are several contracts, having no connection with each other. These parties cannot join their claims in the same bill.

Several creditors may not unite in a suit to attach the effects of an absent debtor. They may file their separate claims, and be allowed payment out of the same fund, but they cannot unite in the same original bill.

At an early day in the term, Mr. Coxe, as counsel for the appellees, moved to dismiss the case, as he alleged it had been already twice discussed by the Court, 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 220.

Mr. Swann and Mr. Neale opposed the motion.

The case was dismissed at a prior term of the Court for want of an appeal bond. There had been but one appeal prior to the present, which was entered in 1833. The counsel for the appellants are now prepared to proceed with the argument.

It is not admitted that a previous irregular appeal prevents another unless the five years allowed by law for an appeal have expired.

The record of the former appeal was not filed in the time required by the rules of the Court, and after it was dismissed, the appellants went into the Circuit Court of the County of Alexandria and prayed for this appeal, which was granted, and now all the requisites of the law and of the rules of Court have been fully complied with. While it is admitted that after an appeal, the appellees, on the omission of the appellants to do so, may file the record, have it opened, and pray to have

Page 33 U. S. 124

it dismissed and thus finally disposed of, and precluding a second appeal, yet this has not been done, and the action of the Court in the case, when formerly before it, has not such effect.

The Court refused the motion. A party may, after an appeal has been discussed for informality, if within five years, bring up the case again.

The case came on afterwards for argument: Mr. Swann and Mr. Neale for the appellants and Mr. Coxe for the appellees.

The Court gave no opinion on the questions of law submitted in the argument, but dismissed the case for informality in the institution of the suit.

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :