Source: https://openjurist.org/94/us/498
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:35:41+00:00

Document:
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.
Argued by Mr. A. L. Knapp for the appellants. The court declined to hear further argument.
When this case was here on a former appeal, we decided that the mortgage in controversy was valid in favor of bona fide holders of the bonds it was given to secure, and that the complainants were entitled to a decree for the amount of the bonds held by them. Kennicott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 468, 471. These questions are, therefore, no longer open; for it is settled in this court, that whatever has been decided here upon one appeal cannot be re-examined in a subsequent appeal of the same suit. Such subsequent appeal brings up for consideration only the proceedings of the Circuit Court, after the mandate of this court. Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch, 314; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 355; Browden v. McArther, 12 id. 53; Sibbard v. United States, 12 Pet. 492; Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Co., 15 How. 466; Sizer v. Manry, 16 id. 103; Roberts v. Cooper, 20 id. 481; Tyler v. Maguire, 17 Wall. 283.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.