EDWARDS
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Edwards brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court, but counsel failed to post a fee-bond and docket the cause during the proper term, though the transcript was timely filed. The Court held that where a transcript has been filed within the required time, the subsequent failure to docket due to inadvertent omission of a fee-bond does not render the writ inoperative, and the Court may permit late docketing in its discretion, particularly where no prejudicial delay has occurred and dismissal motions have been unreasonably withheld.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. ChieE Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The writ of error in this case was returnable to-the October Term, 1877. The return was duly made, and a transcript of the record lodged in the office of the clerk of this court on the 27th of September, 1877. A .citation in due form was issued and served in time. By an oversight of the counsel for the plaintiff in error no fee-bond was given, and the .cause was not docketed during the term of 1877. No motion to docket and •dismiss was ever made, and on the 8d of September, 1878, the attention of counsel having been called to the omission 'of thé security, for costs, an acceptable bond was given and the cause, docketed in form. Under these circumstances-we are not inclined'to dismiss the suit. We are aware that in some of the cases it has been said that a writ of. error or an appeal becomes inoperative if a transcript is not filed and the cause docketed, during the term to which it is made returnable, but this has always been in cases where a return had not been made and a transcript had not been filed within the time. The language should, therefore, be construed in connection with those facts. In Owings v. Tiernan's Lessee (10 Pet. 447) and Van Rensselaer v. Watts (7 How. 784), leave was given to docket the cause after the term, when the transcript had been filed in time, but through inadvertence a fee-bond had not been given, and there had not been in the mean time a motion to docket and dismiss. That is this case. In Selma & Meridian Railroad Co. v. Louisiana National Bank (94 U. S. 253), the transcript was filed in time,'but the cause not docketed because of a failure to furnish, a fee-bond. In this state of things, and while the default continued, a motion to docket and dismiss was made under rule 9, and granted. At the next term the appellant appeared, and moved to set aside the order of dismissal and docket his appeal. This we refused, under the circumstances of that case. After a cause has been docketed and dismissed it cannot be again docketed unless' by order of the court. Such is the rule. If a return 'is made and' the transcript deposited in the clerk’s office in time, our jurisdiction is kept alive. The'docketing of the cause after that is mere procedure, and if unreasonably delayed, the parties may. be subjected to the consequences of a failure to prosecute a suit,, which rest largely in the discretion of the court when not provided for by rules. Rule 9 is of that class. '
In this.case it is abundantly shown that the omission to give the bond was through-inadvertence and without any intention to delay the due prosecution; of the suit. No. harm, has been done, save possibly a short extension of the time for bringing on the hearing. The defendants in error have delayed their motion to 'dismiss until-a new-writ is barred by lapse of time.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1889)…iance with such rules, and on the 26th of October, 1885, the case was docketed, and an appearance for Richardson and Day was entered. The principle applicable to such a state of facts is that established by the decision in Edwards v. United States, 102 U. S. 575. In that case, a writ of error was issued, returnable at October Term, 1877. A.transcript of the record was lodged in the office of the clerk of this court in September, 1877, but by an oversight of the-counsel for the plaintiff in error no fee bond…
-
Green v. Elbert, 137 U.S. 615 (U.S. 1891)…bly deposited in the clerk’s office, jurisdiction is not lost by the lapse of the term, but the cause may still be docketed, if the circumstances are such as to justify the court in exercising its discretion to that effect. Edwards v. United States, 102 U. S. 575; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104. This we cannot be called upon to do arbitrarily. To the proper conduct of the business of this court rules are necessary, and, having been prescribed, reasonable compliance with them, is expected and must be insi…
-
Fayolle v. Tex. & Pac. R.R. Co., 124 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1888)…e presented for the failure to docket in tirqe is not sufficient to give the appellants the benefit of any exception to this rule which was recognized in Grigsby v. Purcell, p. 507. Neither does the case come within that of Edwards v. United States, 102 U. S. 575, because the transcript of the record was not lodged in the office of the clerk of this Court until after the return term of the appeal, and no attempt was made to get it upon the docket until another term had passed and still another had begun. D…
Authorities Cited
- Van Rensselaer v. Executors, 7 How. 784 (U.S. 1849)
- Owings v. Lessee, 10 Pet. 447 (U.S. 1836)
- Selma & Meridian R.R. Co. v. La. Nat'l Bank of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1876)