UNITED STATES V. DAVENPORT'S HEIRS. (No. 33.)

December Term, 1851.

Mr. Coxe moved to dismiss this case, because the record referred to another record, and was therefore incomplete under the rule.1 The attorney general opposed the motion.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. When this rule was made, the records were not printed, and it would have been very inconvenient to refer to other manuscript records of the court. But, as the records are now printed, there is no inconvenience in the practice, and it tends to save expense. Moreover, there is in this record a stipulation of the counsel below to refer to another record of the same court now in this court, and which ought to bind the counsel here. Motion overruled. December 9, 1851.

BEIN V. HEATH. (No. 36.) Filed and docketed December 7, 1849. Mr. Bradley moved for a certiorari. Mr. Coxe objected that the motion came too late; this being the third term that the case had been on the docket. Mr. Bradley replied that the record was not printed at the last term, and that he had been taken into the case since the last continuance.

'Then rule 31; now rule 8.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. When this rule? was made, the records were not printed. Now counsel rarely sees the record until it is printed, and, if the motion is made within a reasonable time after the record is printed, and counsel has the opportunity of seeing it, a certiorari will be granted. But if, after the return, the other party desires to go to trial at this term, the party moving will not be entitled to a continuance.

Certiorari awarded. December 9, 1851.

LARMAN V. TISDALE. (No. 85.) Filed and docketed March 19, 1850. No appearance for plaintiff in error. Appearance of Mr. Stanton entered for defendant in error. Mr. Stanton moved to dismiss this writ of error under the fiftyfourth rule.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. The object of the rules was to embrace a class of cases where there was no appearance; not to lay the foundation for a motion, but for the action of the court when the case is reached in the regular call of the docket. The counsel of defendant in error may avail himself of the nineteenth rule, if there be no appearance then entered for the plaintiff in error. The present motion must be overruled.

December 9, 1851.

Then rule 32; now rule 14. Then rule 54; now rule 16.