113 US 215 Caillot v. Deetken

113 U.S. 215

5 S.Ct. 432

28 L.Ed. 983

CAILLOT and another

January 26, 1885.

J. J. Scrivner, for plaintiff in error.

John F. Hanna and Jas. M. Johnston, for defendant in error.


view counter

It has been repeatedly decided by this court that where no return has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court, this this court has acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and, the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must, therefore, be dismissed. Villabolos v. U. S. 6 How. 81; Castro v. U. S. 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 624. In the case before us the writ of error was filed in the circuit court in which the record was March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this court November 28, 1884. Two full terms of the court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the circuit court and its return with the transcript into this court. It must, therefore, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.