Open main menu

United States v. De Pacheco

(Redirected from 61 U.S. 261)


Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

61 U.S. 261

United States  v.  De Pacheco

THESE four cases are put together, because they were all covered by one decision of the court. They were cases from California.

In the first, Mr. Crittenden moved to dismiss the appeal.

1st. Because it was not taken during the term at which the decree was rendered.

2d. To docket and dismiss pursuant to the sixty-third rule of court.

Mr. Crittenden offered with his motion a duly-certified transcript of the record; from which it appeared that the decree of the District Court confirming the grant was made on the 22d September, 1856, and that the United States appealed therefrom at the next stated term, to wit 24th March, 1857.

UNITED STATES


v.


HENSLEY.

In this case, Mr. Blair moved to docket and dismiss pursuant to the sixty-third rule of this court, accompanied by a duly-certified transcript of the record; from which it appeared that the decree of the District Court, confirming the grant, was made 5th July, 1855, and that the United States appealed therefrom on the said 5th July, 1855.

UNITED STATES


v.


BIDWELL.

Mr. Blair moved to docket and dismiss pursuant to the sixty-third rule of court, accompanied by a duly-certified transcript of the record; from which it appeared that the decree of the District Court, confirming the grant, was made on the 16th of July, 1855, and that the United States appealed therefrom on the said 16th of July, 1855.

UNITED STATES


v.


SUNOT ET AL.

Mr. Blair moved to docket and dismiss pursuant to the sixty-third rule of court, accompanied by a duly-certified transcript of the record; from which it appeared that the decree of the District Court, confirming the grant, was made on the 14th of January, 1856, and that the United States appealed therefrom on the 24th of March, 1857.

The opinion of the court refers to the first-mentioned case, because the first reason given by Mr. Crittenden was peculiar to that case; the second reason was common to all the cases.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

NotesEdit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).