15 F.2d 52 - Casey v. Sterling Cider Co. — 15 F.2d 52

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1968

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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.

¶1Appeal and error <©=>1221.

¶2Circuit Court of Appeals cannot, at subsequent term, recall its mandate and amend order affirming judgment, so as to include interest; such modification involving matter of substance, and not mere form.

¶3In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

¶4Action by the Sterling Cider Company against Andrew J. Casey, formerly acting Collector of Internal Revenue. Judgment for plaintiff (285 E. .885) was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (294 P. 426). Ón plaintiff’s motion that Circuit Court of Appeals recall its mandate, and amend its order affirming judgment, by adding thereto the words “with interest.”

¶5Motion denied.

¶6William W. Armstrong, of Rochester, N. Y., and George R. Farnum, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, for plaintiff in error.

¶7Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

¶8BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

¶9On December 21, 1923, this court entered an order affirming the judgment of the District Court in the above-entitled case; said judgment having been rendered in favor of the Sterling Cider Company, and the government having prosecuted a writ of error to this court.

¶10The Sterling Cider Company now (at the October term, 1926) presents a motion asking that we recall our mandate and amend the order by adding thereto the words “with interest.” The government objects to this.

¶11As the term at which the order of December 21, 1923, was entered has long since expired, and the. modification desired would involve a matter of substance, and not of mere form, we are without power to make the modification, and the motion must be denied. Schell v. Dodge, 107 U. S. 629, 2 S. Ct. 830, 27 L. Ed. 601; E. G. Staude Mfg. Co. v. Labombarde, 247 F. 879, 160 C. C. A. 101.

¶12The motion is denied.