CAILLOT & ANOTHER
v.
DEETKEN
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.
Caillot and another filed a writ of error in the Circuit Court on March 16, 1882, but the transcript of the record was not filed in the Supreme Court until November 28, 1884—more than two full terms of court later. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that when no transcript is filed before or during the term of court next succeeding the filing of a writ of error in the Circuit Court, the Supreme Court acquires no jurisdiction and the writ expires.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
It has been repeatedly decided by this court that where no return.has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the Circuit Court, this court has, acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must, therefore, be dismissed. Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavasos, 6 Wall. 355, 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 624.
In the case before us the writ of error was filed in the Circuit Court in which, the record was March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this court November 28,1884. Two full terms of the court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the Circuit Court and its return with the transcript into this court.
It must, therefore, be
Dismissed for womt of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018)…, n. 1. But they did not participate in the case, ibid., the two participating judges split 1 to 1, and so the views of presiding Justice Field prevailed. The alien appealed to this Court, Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U.S. 216, 5 S.Ct. 431, 28 L.Ed. 983 (1885), but before this Court could decide, the ship departed with Cheong Ah Moy aboard. 2. In Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (1896), the Court struck down as unconstitutional a statute that said alien Chinese…
-
Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1889)
-
Inmates v. Sheriff Owens, 561 F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 1977)…tory judgment statutes since the prisoners are no longer subjected to the alleged conditions of which they complained. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 241-242, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Cheong Ah Moy v. U. S., 113 U.S. 216, 5 S.Ct. 431, 28 L.Ed. 983 (1885). II. Further, we do not believe that the rearrest of Jimmie Edmonds alters our mootness holdings. While he was one of the nine original inmates below who collectively sought to sue the sheriff as “Inmates, Petitioner,” he did not appeal. In…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (U.S. 1875)
- Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355 (U.S. 1867)
- Villabolos v. The United States, 6 How. 81 (U.S. 1848)
- Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46 (U.S. 1865)