113 U.S. 215 - Caillot v. Deetken — 113 U.S. 215

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1977

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

¶2This court can acquire no jurisdiction under a writ of error where the return to it is made by filing the transcript of the record here after the expiration of the term of this court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the Circuit Court.

¶3The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

¶4 *216Mr. J. J. Scrivner for plaintiffs in error.

¶5Mr. John A. Wright, Mr. John F. Hanna, and Mr. James M. Johnston for defendant in error.

¶6Mr. Justice Miller

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8It 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 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. United States, 6 How. 81; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavasos, 6 Wall. 355, 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 624.

¶9In 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.

¶10It must, therefore, be

¶11Dismissed for womt of jurisdiction.