Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Micas v. Williams, 1881 — 104 U.S. 556 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Micas v. Williams
104 U.S. 55626 L. Ed. 842·Supreme Court of the United States·1881
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Micas v. Williams.
Where the record is such as to furnish a sufficient color of right to the dismissal - of the writ of error to justify the court in entertaining with a motion to dismiss a motion' io affirm under Rule 6,— Held, that although the grounds for dismissal he removed by a further showing, the motion to affirm will he granted, when it is manifest that the writ was sued out for delay only.
Motion to dismiss a writ’of error .to the Circuit Court>of the United -States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, with which is united a motion to affirm under -Rule 6, par. 5.
Mr. Joseph P. Horndr in support of the motion.
Mr. T.homas J. Durant, contra.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite:]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite:
delivered the opinion of the court.
The affidavits which have been' filed by the plaintiff in error,, in opposition to'these, motions, are probably sufficient ¡to establish the: fact that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied ; but on-, looking into the record we are entirely satisfied the writ was taken for delay only.' No assignment'of errors has been annexed to or returned with the writ, as required by sect. 997 of the Revised Statutes; and every question presented by the bill of exceptions or suggested upon the argument appears to us so frivolous as to make it improper- .to keep the case here for any further consideration. There was' on the record, as it stood when these motions were made, at least sufficient, color of right to a dismissal to justify us in entertaining with it a motion to affirm in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6, par. 5.
Motion to affirm granted.