UNIT]!)D STATES 11. GOODRICH.
a nonresident to try his controversy with the community before its own judges. If this holding is an attack on the system of an elective judiciary, then it is the constitution and laws of the United :States which are responsible for the attack, and not the courts which administer them. The motion to remand is denied.
UNITED STATES v. GOODRICH. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth C1rcuit. No. 176.
APPEAL-AssIGNMENTS OF ERROR-TIME OF FILING.
February 6, 1893.)
In pursuance of rule 11 of the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, requiring an assignment of errors to be filed with the petition for the writ of error or appeal, and declaring that errors not assigned according to this rule will be disregarded, the court will not consider errors the assignment I)f which is not made and filed In the court below until after the appeal or writ of error is allowed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the East· ern District of Arkansas. Suit by Ralph L. Goodrich, clerk of the United States oircuit and district court for the western division of the eastern district of Arkansas, against the United States for fees. The circuit court en· tered a judgment for plaintiff. 47 Fed. Rep. 267. Defendant appeals. .Affirmed. Charles C.Waters, U. S. Atty. U. M. Rose and G. B. Rose, for appellee. Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and BHIRAS, District Judge. SANBORN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment against the United States for fees due to the clerk of the circuit court for the eastern district of Arkansas, rendered under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, (24 St. c. 359.) The judgment appealed from was entered on October 5, 1891, and on the same day an appeal to this court was prayed for and granted. No assignment of errors was filed until June 30, 1892. By the act of March 3, 1891, (26 St. pp. 826, 829,) no appeal by which this judg· ment could be reviewed in this court could be taken, except within six months after the entry of this judgment. The eleventh rule of this court which was adopted on June 17, 1891, reads as follows:
"The pillint;iff in error or appellant shall file with the clerk of the court below, with his petition for the writ of error or appeal, an assignment of errors, wbich shall set out separately and particularly each error asserted and intl:'nded to be urged. No writ of error or appeal shall be allowed until such assignment of errors shall have been filed. When the error alleged Is to the admissio)l or, to the rejection of evidence, the assignment of errors shall quote the full substance of the evidence admitted 01· rejected. Wben the error allegEd is to the cbarge of 'the court, the assignment of errors shall set mit the part referred to totidem verbis, whether it be in instructions given or:in instructions refused. Such lIBsignment of errors shall form part of the . transcript of the record, and be printed with it. When this is not done, coun·
'J: ,:J., did n.ot me any assignment of 'errors when it prayed f0f:. itsllPpeal, nor, until long atter the· six . months allowed for perfecting the appeal had expired, the errors assigned in this case must be disregarded under the me. In view of the fact that this is the first case in which we have had occasion to enforce this rule, we have carefully exalnined this arid are satisfied that no substantial error wascominitted by the court below, and that no injustice will be done by thel\Pplication of the rule to this case, while the announcement that it will be enforced may promote its observance, and thus prevent injustice from its enforcement in the future·. ',' The result is that this court. will not errors the asof which is nottnade and 1I1ed in the ,court below when the'appeal or writ of error is allowed. The .jodgment below is aftirmecL
, ' , ,:i )
of IUldel'rorsnot wU1 <»®arded,. but ';1ihe colll"t, at ita Qption, maynd,tlce"'a. plaln'error not assigned." . .', · .
L UNION PAO. RY. 00. T. OOLORADO EASTERN RY. 00.
Elghth'Cfrcult. :February 6, 1893.)
to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of' Colorado. ' . ...' . .' . Prooeeding by ·the· ColOl"ado' Eastern ,RailwaY' Company against the Union Pacific Railway Company for the condemnation of certain 'hind. Judgment for plaintiff. '41 Fed. Rep. 293. Defendant brings error. Writ of error dismissed. John ¥. Thurston, Willard Teller, and H. M. Orahood, (E. B. Morgan, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error. 11. M.()uthbert, for defendant in error. Before CALDWELL·· and SANBORN, Oircuit Judges" and SHIRAS,District Judge.
Circuit Judge. The judgment in this case wasrendered on November 23, 1891. The writ of error wae sued on June 14, 1892; . This. court. hasnojtl,.risdiction of thi,scase, since more than six months 1:>etween th,e entry of the j\ldgment and the dayQn wb.i<::hthe writ oterror was sued out. U. S'-v. Bax. ter, 51 Fed. Rep. 624; 20. C. A. 410; ;BrookSv. Norris,U How. 201;