32:T48a,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42","datePublished":"1855-12-18","legislationDate":"1855-12-18","citation":"Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42 (1855)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of the United States","description":"Read the full text of Peck v. Sanderson (Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42 (1855)). This legal opinion, filed in 1855-12-18, from the Supreme Court of the United States discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/peck-v-sanderson--86969"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/peck-v-sanderson--86969","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Peck v. Sanderson, Supreme Court of the United States, Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42 (1855)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T508, Mr. Justice McLEAN

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was decided at the last term, on an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and a motion is now made by Mr. Rush, counsel for the appellee, for a reargument, on the ground that he was "prevented by sickness from attending the court at the time of the hearing.

It is a subject of regret that any cause should be heard in the absence of counsel, and especially where the cause of absence, by a failure in the mail, was unknown to the court.

In the above case, the' brief of the counsel was before the. court, and it is not probable that an oral argument would have changed the result.

But in the case of Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58, it was held that this court cannot grant a rehearing in a case which has been remitted .to the court below; and in the case of the Washington Bridge Company v. Stewart, et al. 3 How. 413, the same principle was recognized. The motion is overruled.