About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

James L. and Samuel L. Taylor, Administrators of Robert Taylor, deceased, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Nathan T. Carryl, who survived William J. Ward U.S. 583 (1857)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0190 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEM3ER TERM, 1857.                    583
Taylor et al. v. Carryl.
sides, by Judge Ingersoll, then holding the court, vacating. the
judgment on the payment of costs that had previously accrued,
and alo upon t      ondition that the case should be settled
in a short time mentioned, and the motion made for a new
trial, with liberty to either party to turn the case into a bill of
exceptions, which right had been reserved at the inal. The
case was settled accordingly, the motion for a new trial heard
and denied, a bill of exceptions settled and signed, agreeably
to the order of the 19th December, and filed in the office of
the clerk of said court. Since the motion for a new trial, and
the settlement of the bill of exceptions, the attorney for the
plaintiff has issued an execution on the judgment of the 12th
December, claiming it to be still in force, on the ground that
the condition had not been complied with in respect to the
payment of costs. A motion was subsequently made by the
defendants to set aside this execution and the judgment afore-
said unconditionally, *hich was granted by the court. The
present motion to this court is for a rule to show cause against
the court below, why a mandamus should not issue to vacate
this last order.
The* ground upon which the court below placed its decision
for setting aside the judgment ahd execution unconditionally,
is, that the attorney for the plaintis, by not making out his
bill of costs, procuring a taxation, and demanding them pre-
vious to the hearing of the motion for a new trial, thereby im-
pliedly consented to waive this condition, and cannot after-
wards set it up for the purpose of invalidating the order of the
19th December, vacating the judgment. We concur in this
view of the court, and we are also satisfied, from the course of
the proceedings preparatory to the motion for the new trial, the
hearing of that motion, and the turning of-the case into a bill
of exceptions with a view to a writ of error, it was the under-
standing of both parties that the judgment of the 12th Decem-
ber was to be considered as vacated, and that a new one be
entered for the plaintiffs, if a motion for a new trial was desired.
The court is of opinion, therefore, that the facts presented
upon this motion for a mandamus are not such as entitle the
plaintiffs to a rule to their cause, and it must therefore be denied.
JAMES L. AND SAMUEL L. TAYLOR, ADMINISTRATORS o' RoiERT
TAYLOR, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. IN ATiAN T. CARL-
RYL, WHO SURVIVED WILLIAM J. WARD.
Where a vessel had been seized under a process of foreign attachment issuing from
a State court in Pennsylvania, and a motion was pending in that court for an
order of sale, a libel filed in the District Court of the United States, for mariners

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most