SCARBOROUGH
v.
PARGOUD
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.
A Louisiana state court judgment rendered in July 1878 was challenged by writ of error, but the writ was not actually filed in the state court until July 1880, more than two years after the judgment's entry. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ, holding that a writ of error must be filed within two years of judgment and that the limitation period is calculated from when the writ is actually filed in the lower court, not from when it is merely approved or signed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The final decree in this case was rendered on the 13th of July, 1878, and while the writ of error was allowed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and a bond approved and citation signed on the 5th of July, 1880, the writ of error was not actually issued until the 14th, and the copy was not lodged in the 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-; 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 of the writ that removes the record from the inferior to the appellate court, and the period of limitation prescribed by the act of Congress must be calculated accordingly. 5 This case is cited with approval in Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355.
It follows that the writ of -error in this .case was not Brought within the time limited by law, and we have consequently no jurisdiction. For that reason
The writ is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)
-
Credit Co. Ltd. v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1888)…he day on which the writ may have been issued by the clerk, or the day on which it is tested, are not material in deciding the question.” p. 207. This decision has always been adhered to. See Mussina v. Gavazos, 6 Wall. 355; Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U. S. 567; Polleys v. Black River Co., 113 U. S. 81. The same rule is applicable to appeals as to writs of error. Section 1012 of the Revised Statutés declares that “appeals from the Circuit Courts, and District Courts acting as Circuit Courts, and from Dis…
-
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007)…, 314-315 (1988); Browder, 434 U. S., at 264. Indeed, even prior to the creation of the circuit courts of appeals, this Court regarded statutory limitations on the timing of appeals as limitations on its own jurisdiction. See Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U. S. 567, 568 (1883) (“[T]he writ of error in this case was not brought within the time limited by law, and we have consequently no jurisdiction”); United States v. Curry, 6 How. 106, 113 (1848) (“[A]s this appeal has not been prosecuted in the manner direct…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355 (U.S. 1867)
- Jehiel Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204 (U.S. 1850)
- Cummings v. Jones, 104 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1881)