LUTCHER
v.
UNITED STATES
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 United States brought suit against Lutcher & Moore to recover damages for the conversion of federal timber, and the Circuit Court rendered judgment in favor of the United States. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because it was directed to the Circuit Court rather than the Circuit Court of Appeals as required by the Judiciary Act of 1891, and the writ was filed too late.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
This was an action brought by the United States in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas against the firm of Lutcher & Moore of that district, doing a milling and manufacturing business at Orange, Texas, to recover damages for cutting, carrying away, and converting to their own use certain timber, the property of the United States. Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States March 11, 1891. April 3, 1891, a writ of error was allowed from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The record does not disclose what proceedings were had thereon in that court. July 2, 1891, a writ of error from this court was sued out and filed, the bond thereon being approved and the citation signed July 10, 1891. The petition for the allowance of the writ states that the Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the cause to be docketed and the transcript of record to be filed therein, on the ground that the cause should have been taken to this court and not to that court. But the last clause of section six of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, refers to the Circuit Court of Appeals and not to the Circuit Court, and this writ of error is to the Circuit Court and not to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and does not, therefore, reach the proceedings in the latter court. ¥e perceive no ground on which this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Circuit Court on this writ, and, moreover, it'was brought too late. Cincinnati Safe and Lock Co. v. Grand Rapids Deposit Co., 146 U. S.
54. Either objection is fatal.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (77 total)
-
United States ex rel. John Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1904)
-
Ricketts v. Pa. R. Co., 153 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1946)…no evidence and intended to frighten the court. Sometimes judges have been persuaded by such prophecies which later events have shown to have been unfounded. So Choate, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 1895, 157 U.S. 429, 532, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, seemingly alarmed the majority of the Court by his forecast that a federal income tax would usher in a communist regime in this country. And it is well to recall Lord Abinger’s dire prediction when in 1837 he enunciated the fellow-servant rule whic…
-
Lonsdale v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981)…75 S.Ct. 473, 477, 99 L.Ed. 483 (1955). This definition is clearly within the power to tax “incomes” granted by the sixteenth amendment. Appellants next seem to argue, in reliance on Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895), and other authority, that, so understood, the income tax is a direct one that must be apportioned among the several states. U.S.Const. art. I, sec. 2. This requirement was eliminated by the sixteenth amendment. Finally, appellants argue tha…
Previewing 3 of 77 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co. v. Grand Rapids Safety Deposit Co., 146 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1892)