UNITED STATES
v.
JONES

U.S. | 1893-05-01
No. 262
149 U.S. 262 Supreme Court of the United States (1893) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 37 L. Ed. 726 · 13 S. Ct. 840 · 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2293 · SCDB 1892-210
Cited by 18 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice:

The Chief Justice:

Judgment was rendered in this case July 18, the writ of error sued out and allowed July 23, and the court adjourned for the term,-July 30, 1889. So far as disclosed by the record the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge or signed by him until October 7, 1889, and no order was entered extending the time for its presentation, nor was there any consent of parties thereto, nor any standing rule of court which authorized such approval. The bill of exceptions was therefore improvidently allowed. Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249; Jones v. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co., 131 U. S. Appx. cl; Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293. As the errors assigned arise upon the bill of exceptiofls, we are compelled to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Payne, 72 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1934)
    …n v. Free, 46 Utah, 277, 148 P. 408; Carter v. Long, 124 Ala. 330, 27 So. 465; Schoonover v. Reed, 65 Ind. 313; Freeman v. Moffitt (Mo. Sup.) 32 S. W. 300; Reliable Incubator & Brooder Co. v. Stahl (C. C. A.) 102 F. 590. See, also, U. S. v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; O’Connell v. U. S., 253 U. S. 142, 40 S. Ct. 444, 64 L. Ed. 827; Exporters, etc., v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U. S. 365, 42 S. Ct. 331, 66 L. Ed. 663; Taylor v. U. S., 286 U. S. 1, 52 S. Ct. 466, 76 L. Ed. 951. T…
    1 / 2
  • Wainer v. United States, 87 F.2d 77 (7th Cir. 1937)
    …. 156, 14 S.Ct. 43, 37 L. Ed. 1037; Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249, 23 L.Ed. 319; City of Harper, Kan v. Daniels (C.C.A.) 211 F. 57; Robertson v. Cockrell (C.C.A.) 209 F. 843; Miller v. Morgan (C. C.A.) 67 F. 82; United States v. Jones, 149 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 840, 37 L.Ed. 726. In the rules the Supreme Court has substituted for the trial term a period of thirty [*80] days, and orders entered after the expiration of that time are beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the order of November 10th extendin…
  • United States v. Seale, 45 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1930)
    …present a bill of exceptions, and such bill is the one that we are asked to consider. Appellee’s motion was well taken, as the power of the court in the absence of an extension order ended with the trial term. United States v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; Jennings v. Philadelphia, etc., Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 255, 31 S. Ct. 1, 54 L. Ed. 1031. And such power could not be restored by a nunc pro tune order. Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 12 S. Ct. 450, 36 S. Ct. 162; Expo…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw