Case: Thomas G. W. Crussell, Appellee, v. The United States, Appellants
Abbreviation: Crussell v. United States
Decision Date: 1871-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 7 Ct. Cl. 204
Volume: 7
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Thomas G. W. Crussell, Appellee, v. The United States, Appellants.
Judges: 
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
(12 Wallace R., p. 175.)
Thomas G. W. Crussell, Appellee, v. The United States, Appellants.
On the appellant!? Motion.
The case is pending in the Supreme Court on appeal. Shortly before it is reached on the doelcet, the appellants move a continuance, on the ground that they have moved in the Court of Claims for a neto trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence under the Act 25 June, 1868, (15 Stat. L.,p. 75, § 2.) The appellee opposes, on the ground that more than two years had elapsed after judgment was given before the new trial was asked for ; andón the ground of interminable delay.
Final hearing on an appeal will be postponed at the instance of the Government, where it, being appellant, has moved in the Court of Claims for a new trial on newly-discovered evidence under the Act 25 June, 1868, (15 Stat. L.,p. 75, $ 2.)
Mr. Solicitor-General Bristow and Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hitt, for the motion.
Mr. James Hughes opposed.
Seo Ayer’s Case, ante, and Russell’s Case, post.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice
delivered the opinion of the court:
In the case of The United States v. Ayers, (6. Wall., p. 608,) this court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judg ment of tbe Court of Claims, when tbe motion was made upon tbe ground tbat a motion for a new trial bad been made by tbe United States, and was pending in tbat court, but after-wards dismissed tbe same appeal, when a new trial bad been granted. We are satisfied with tbe rulings then announced, and tbink tbat tbe spirit of them requires us to allow tbe continuance now asked for. We must not be understood, however, as giving any sanction to tbe idea tbat indefinite postponement of final bearing and determination can be obtained by repeated motions for continuance bere.
Tbe objection, tbat more than two years liad elapsed after judgment in tbe Court of Claims, before tbe motion for a new trial was made, should be addressed to tbat court in opposition to tbe motion. Its decision, whatever it may be, can be reviewed bere.