UNITED STATES
v.
BABBITT
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 affirmed a judgment in favor of an Army officer seeking longevity pay that included his service as a cadet at West Point, despite the lower court having initially decided against him on the merits. The Court held that a pro forma judgment rendered by consent of the Attorney General constituted a waiver of any legal errors, and therefore the Court would not consider the merits of the appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Me. Chiev Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The question presented to the court below on the trial of this case was, whether in the computation of longevity pay for an officer of the army of the United States, under the provisions .of sect.- 7 of the act of June 18, 1878, c. 268 (20 Stat. 145), his period of service as a cadet at West Point was to be taken into account. The court decided it was not, and an elaborate opinion to that effect was filed ; but the record shows that, after the decision was announced, a proforma judgment was rendered, with the consent of the Attorney-General, in favor of the claimant. This is stated in the judgment to have been done because the case vas one of a class, and the claimant, if judgment should be given against him, could not appeal. In Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum (101 U. S. 289), we decided that when a decree was rendered by consent, no errors would, be considered here on an appeal which Avere in laAv Avaived by such a consent. In our opinion, this case comes Avithiir that rule. The consent to the judgment below was in law a Avaiver of the error now complained of. For this reason the judgment below must be affirmed; and it is
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958)…use dismissal of the complaint was solicited by the Government. They invoke the familiar rule that a plaintiff who has voluntarily dismissed his complaint may not sue out a writ of error. See Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73; United States v. Babbitt, 104 U. S. 767. The rule has no application here. The Government at all times opposed the production orders. It might of course have tested their validity in other ways, for example, by the route of civil contempt. Yet it is understandable why a more conventional…
-
Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1928)…ecree, which appears by the record to have been rendered by consent, is always affirmed, without considering the merits of the cause.” Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. United States, 113 U. S. 261, 266. Compare United States v. Babbitt, 104 U. S. 767; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 295. Where, as here, the attack is not by appeal or by bill of review, but by a motion to vacate, filed more than four years after the entry of the decree, the scope of the enquiry may be even narrower. Compare Ken…1 / 2
-
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1983)…ined entry of a judgment against it, unless it does so solely as a device by which to obtain immediate appellate review of an interlocutory order. E. g., United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677, 680-681 (1958); United States v. Babbitt, 104 U. S. 767 (1882); Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73 (1819). Yet that is precisely what the Court permits the Government to do in this case.1 Respondents were convicted of drug violations and sentenced to prison. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on Aug…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1879)