CUMMINGS
v.
JONES
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.
The Supreme Court held that the two-year limitation period prescribed by federal statute for bringing writs of error to federal courts also applies to writs of error to state courts, and therefore dismissed Cummings's writ as untimely since it was filed more than two years after the Louisiana Supreme Court's judgment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
. This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, brought more than two but less than five years after the judgment to be reviewed was rendered, and one of the questions' raised on this motion is whether the limitation of two years prescribed by sect. 1008 of the Revised Statutes, for bringing writs of error to the Circuit and District Courts, applies to writs of error to State courts. We have no hesitation in Saying it does. Sect. 1003 provides that “ writs of error from the Supreme Court to a State court, in cases authorized by law, shall be issued in the same manner, and under the same regulations, and shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in-u-eoiirt of the United States.” This is almost the exact language of a similar provision in the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and we are not aware it was ever supposed that writs issued to the State court under that section were not subject to' the limitation-' prescribed for writs to the Circuit Courts by the twenty-second' section., In Brooks v. Norris (11 How. 20-4), this seems to have been assumed, and a writ to a State court was dismissed “ on the ground that it. is barred by the' limitation of time prescribed by the act of Congress.” There was at that time no-other limitation than the one contained in .the twenty-second section.
•Inasmuch as the writ was not brought within two years after the judgment complained of was rendered, the motion is
Granted-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sammis v. Wightman, 25 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1889)
-
Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U.S. 567 (U.S. 1883)…e clerk’s office until the 16th of that month. No judgment or decree of a State court can be reviewed in this court unless the writ of error is brought within two years after the entry of the judgment. Rev. Stats. § 1008-; [*568] Cummings v. Jones, 104 U. S. 419. In Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204, it was decided,.Chief Justice Taney speaking for the court, that “ the writ of error is not brought, in the legal meaning of the term, until it is filed in the court -which rendered the judgment. It is the filing o…
-
Jennings v. S. RY. Co. (E.D.S.C. 1930)…close points and difficulties, but to our mind the correct decision in this ease is plain. An order refusing a remand will follow if either one of the causes of action shall be against the nonresident defendant solely. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 409, 26 L. Ed. 824; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187, 5 S. Ct. 90, 28 L. Ed. 693; Geer v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 428, 23 S. Ct. 807, 47 L. Ed. 1122. [*953] The question then arises as to whether this complaint states a cause of action against the Southern Ra…