pearance is not necessary to give the appellee a right to make it. Order. The serious objections which often exist to On consideration of the motion by Mr. Baldpermitting an attorney to strike out his appear-win, for leave to strike out his appearance, ance for a defendant in a court exercising orig- which had been improvidently entered (by an inal jurisdiction, do not apply in an appellate agent of his) for the appellees in this cause, court. And under the rules of this court, it is, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon had, in general, of no importance to the appellant, as well against as in support of the motion, it whether an appearance for the appellee is or is is now here ordered by the court, that the not entered on the record. For if he is en- leave prayed for be, and the same is hereby titled to his appeal, and has prosecuted it to granted. this court according to law, the refusal or omission of the appellee to appear will not delay the trial, and a judgment against him will be as conclusive as if an appearance for him had been entered on the docket, and the case argued by his counsel. 12 L. ed. Note by the Reporter. The case was afterwards dismissed, upon the same grounds as in the preceding case of The United States v. Curry and Garland. 877 CASES ARGUED AND ADJUDGED IN Supreme Court of the United States, IN JANUARY TERM, 1849. BY BENJAMIN O. HOWARD, Counselor at law, and Reporter of the Decisions of the Supreme Court VOL. VEL. > THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE TIME OF THESE REPORTS. The Hon. ROGER B. TANEY, Chief Justice. ISAAC TOUCEY, Esq., Attorney-General. RULE OF COURT No. 53. ORDERED, that no counsel will be permitted court, more than two hours, without the special begins. to speak, in the argument of any case in this leave of the court, granted before the argument abstract of the case be first filed, together with Counsel will not be heard unless a printed the points intended to be made, and the authorities intended to be cited in support of them arranged under the respective points. And no argument. If one of the parties omits to file such a will be heard ex-parte, upon the argument of This rule to take effect on the first day of Woodbury, J., does not concur in this rule. other book or case can be referred to in the statement, he cannot be heard, and the case the party by whom the statement is filed. December Term, 1849. MEMORANDUM BY THE REPORTER. noted in the preceding volume: Chief Justice Taney, Mr. Justice Nelson, and of the court. Company v. The Merchants' Bank of Boswith Mr. Justice Daniel. THE following dissents were omitted to be Page 228. Bein and wife v. Heath.- Mr. Mr. Justice Grier dissented from the opinion Page 344. New Jersey Steam Navigation ton. Mr. Justice Grier concurred in opinion Page 437. Hogg v. Emerson. Mr. Chief Justice Grier dissented from the opinion of the Page 605. United States v. Yates and McIntyre.-Mr. Justice Daniel and Mr. Justice Woodbury dissented from the opinion of the court. Justice Taney, Mr. Justice Daniel, and Mr. I court. |