KEYSER
v.
FARR
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.
In this appeal from a lower court decree, the Supreme Court held that once an appeal bond has been accepted by a judge and the case docketed in the Supreme Court, jurisdiction transfers from the lower court, depriving it of power to vacate the appeal allowance or enforce the original decree. The Court rejected the lower court's attempt to set aside its earlier approval of the appeal and vacate the supersedeas bond, establishing that a court loses jurisdiction over a case once the appellate process has been formally initiated through bond acceptance and docketing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the'opinion of the court.
. The decree in this case was rendered on the 26th of October, 1881. The record also' shows that the court on . the same day •entered an.order allowing an appeal and fixed the amount of the. bond. On the 29.th and 31st of October bonds for the appeal and supersedeas were executed by all the'several appellants, and-approved by the Chief J us'tice of the court. On the last day named the case was docketed in this court,- and a transcript of the record filed. Afterwards, on the 14th of. November, but during the terra at which the order allowing the appeal was entered, the appellees moved the court below to require additional security from-the appellants, Keyser, Howard, and Smith. On the hearing of this motion the court entered an order purporting to set aside and vacate the former allowance of an appeal, but at the same time made a new allowance to take effect on that day. .
Upon this state of facts, the appellants, fearing that execution may issue notwithstanding their appeal docketed ^here, move for hn order restraining the court below from proceeding to enforce the decree, and the appellees move to dismiss': 1, be- " cause the allowance of the appeal has been vacated; and, 2, because the. value of the matter-in dispute is less than $2,500.
. After the acceptance of the bonds for the appeal, and the docketing of the cause in this court, the jurisdiction of the court below was gone. From that time the suit was cognizable Only in this court. In Goddard v. Ordway (101 U. S. 745), there was nothing more than the-formal order of allowance entered, as in this ease, with the final decree. Such an order, while in that condition, it'wash held, was subject to the control which every court retains over its ordinary judgments during the term. In Draper v. Davis (102 U. S. 370), however, it was decided that, after a-boiid had been accepted by one of the judges in accordance with such an order of allowance, the jurisdiction was transferred from the court below. Here a bond wat not only accepted, but the case was actually entered in-this c(urt. In this way clearly the court below was deprived of power to. make its order of November 14. It follows that the ¿notion to dismiss, so far as it is based upon the order of the court below vacating its allowance of tbe appeal, must be denied, and that the supersedeas which followed in law from the-acceptance of the bond by the Chief Justice is in force. Such was our ruling in Draper v. Davis (supra), on a similar motion at the last term.
The questions presented 'by the other branch of the motion to dismiss are important, and have not-been directly settled, as wé think, by any decision yet made by this court. Their further consideration is postponed until the case,is heard on its merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
United States v. Ellenbogen, 390 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1968)…use,” Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U.S. 150, 157, 3 S.Ct. 136, 140, 27 L.Ed. 888 (1883), has long been held to control when a case' is on appeal in the Supreme Court, e. g., Draper v. Davis, 102 U.S. 370, 26 L.Ed. 121 (1880); Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 26 L.Ed. 1025 (1882); and it has been invoked in the case of certiorari, Nemec v. United States, 184 F. 2d 355 (9 Cir. 1950). There is nothing in the history of Rule 35 to suggest that its draftsmen intended to alter this principle in the case of a motion to re…
-
United States v. Liddy, 510 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1974)…ce imposed. Once appeal is properly taken, the District Court is without jurisdiction during its pendency to modify the judgment by resentencing the prisoner. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. at 214, 58 S.Ct. 164; Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 266, 26 L.Ed. 1025 (1882). A unanimous panel of this court has held that a “District Court . was without authority to vacate the general sentence previously imposed” once notice of appeal was filed, United States v. Mack, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 162, 169, 466 F. 2d 333, 34…1 / 2
-
In re Fed. Facilities Realty Tr. v. Kulp, 227 F.2d 651 (7th Cir. 1955)…ly the court below is without power * * * to proceed with the execution of the decree appealed from, and we will presume that upon an intimation of that kind from us it will not attempt to do so.” To the same effect is Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 26 L.Ed. 1025, in which the trial court entered an order which had the effect of requiring additional security for a supersedeas previously granted in an appeal which had already been docketed in the Supreme Court. These authorities are not controlling, of cours…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1879)
- Draper v. Davis, 102 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1880)