Court Opinion

ID: 9416793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:55:48.482019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:32.625254
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice BRADLEY,
dissenting.
I dissent, with some diffidence, from the opinion of the court, on the following grounds:
1st. That notwithstanding the act of Congress declares that a writ of error shall be a supersedeas if certain conditions are performed, the'judgment of the court has the effect of leaving many classes of decrees and judgments in equity, though appealed from, entirely effective and operative between the parties, whereas the writ of error ought to sus*299pend the effect and operation thereof until the case is heard in this court.
2d. That the judgment of this court will have the effect to allow subordinate State courts to evade the supersedeas of a writ of error in all cases where the court of last resort remits the record to them for execution. The judgment of this court disclaims all jurisdiction over the acts of the subordinate State courts, and thereby, in my judgment, surrenders a very important power necessary to the effective support of its appellate jurisdiction.
8d. That the judgment of the court remits the practice on this subject substantially back to the practice of the English courts of equity, in which it is conceded that an appeal does not suspend proceedings nor act as a supersedeas on the proceedings in the court appealed from: and, in effect, departs from the act of Congress, which declares that a writ of error or an appeal in the Federal courts shall be a supersedeas.
4th. That the effect of the judgment of the court is to disclaim its just control over the parties to the record.