Prentice v. Pickersgill
Supreme Court of the United States | 1868-01-13
6 Wall. 511,18 L. Ed. 790,73 U.S. 511,1867 U.S. LEXIS 999
The writ of error in this case was sued out merely for delay. The judgment will therefore be affirmed under the twenty-third rule, with ten per centum damages on the amount of the judgment below.
Affirmed accordingly.
Note.
At the close of the term another case, The Chicago City Railway Co. v. Bour, a suit brought by a passenger against a railroad company to recover damages for an injury done to him, by reason of the negligence of their servants in running one of their cars, was affirmed with like damages, there having been no exception to the rulings or instructions of the court, and the court observing that the case seemed “to have been brought simply for delay.” See also The Douro, 3 Wallace, 566.
Chat with this case!
Use this chat window to ask questions about this specific case. During this chat session, the AI will not have access to any other outside materials other than this case.