Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 F. 787

Docket No. 18.

Coulliette v. Thomason

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 6, 1892.)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1892-06-06

<p>Aimt.at, to Circuit Court or Appeals--Time or Taking — Dismissal.</p> <p>An appeal taken to the circuit court of appeals more than six months after entry of the decree must be dismissed, under Judiciary Act 1891, § 11.</p>

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1892-06-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1928

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

301892190019101920decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Aimt.at, to Circuit Court or Appeals--Time or Taking — Dismissal.

¶2An appeal taken to the circuit court of appeals more than six months after entry of the decree must be dismissed, under Judiciary Act 1891, § 11.

¶3Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana.

¶4In Equity. Bill by ,T. Sidney Goulliette and others against Mrs. Mary II. Thomason and L. B. Thomason to recover certain lands and for an accounting. Decree rejecting complainants’ demands, and quieting title in defendant Mary H. Thomason, as against them. Complainants appeal.

¶5Appeal dismissed.

¶6Boatner & Lankin, for appellants.

¶7Frank N. Butler, for appellees.

¶8Before Pardee and McCormick, Circuit Judges, and Locke, District Judge.

¶9Pardee, Circuit Judge.

¶10The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case because no assignment of errors was filed in the court below, or forms part of the transcript of record. The failure to make an assignment of errors, under rule 11 of the rules of this court, is sufficient ground to refuse to hear counsel, but not, perhaps, in all cases sufficient to dismiss the appeal. In this case, however, we find, not only an omission of the assignment of errors, hut a failure to file briefs, and that an examination of the record does not show any plain error in the decree appealed from. And we notice in the record that the decree appealed from in the court below was rendered on the 11th day of October, 1890; that the motion and order for appeal to this court were not made nor granted until September 10, 1891, more than six months alter the date of the entry of the decree appealed from; that the order allowing the appeal made the same returnable more than 30 days after the date thereof; and that the citation was made returnable more than 30 days thereafter. The fact alone that the appeal was not taken until *788more than six months after the entry of the decree appealed from (section 11 of the judiciary act of 1891) requires the appeal to be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

/50/f1d/787 · .json · Public domain