130 F.1d 109 - Rutan v. Johnson — 130 F. 109

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1925

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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.

¶11. Circuit Court of Appeals — Jurisdiction—Time for Suing out Writ of Error.

¶2Under section 11 of Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 829 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 552], creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals, such court is without jurisdiction to review a judgment on a writ of error not issued until more than six months after the entry of the judgment, notwithstanding it may have been allowed within that time.

¶31f 1. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court of Appeals, see notes to Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 1 C. C. A. 6; United States Freehold Land & Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 32 C. C. A. 475.

¶4On Motions to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction.

¶5For opinion below, see 122 Fed. 993.

¶6Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8In each of the two above-entitled cases the record discloses the same state of facts. Final judgment was entered on June 12, 1903. A bill of exceptions was signed and filed on September 22, *1101903, and on the same day an assignment of errors was filed and a writ of error was allowed by the judge upon a petition presented and filed. The writ of error, however, was not issued until December 28, 1903, and on that day was filed in the court below. It follows, therefore, that the writ of error was not sued out within the time limited by the act of March 3, 1891 (chapter 517, § 11, 26 Stat. 829 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 552], namely, within six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed, and hence we have no jurisdiction. This conclusion is abundantly sustained by decisions of United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. United States v. Baxter, 51 Fed. 624, 2 C. C. A. 410; Stevens v. Clerk, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379; City of Waxahachie v. Coler, 92 Fed. 284, 34 C. C. A. 349; Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204, 207, 13 L. Ed. 665; Scarborough v. Pargood, 108 U. S. 567, 2 Sup. Ct. 877, 27 L. Ed. 824.

¶9The writ of error in each of the above-entitled causes is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.