THE CLAIMANTS AND OWNERS OF THE STEAMER VIRGINIA, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL W. WEST, WILLIAM T. BELL, ALBERT R. HEATH, AND JAMES J. EDWARDS, PARTNERS, UNDER THE FIRM OF HEATH & EDWARDS; THOMAS C. BUNTING AND - LECATO, PARTNERS, UNDER THE FIRM OF BUNTING & LECATO, AND JOHN M. HENDERSON
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 claimants and owners of the steamer Virginia appealed a Circuit Court decree from Maryland, but failed to file the transcript of the record during the term immediately following the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that federal law required the transcript to be filed and the case docketed at the term next succeeding the appeal to vest the Court with jurisdiction. The dismissal did not bar the appellants from taking another appeal within five years, provided they complied with the procedural requirements for the subsequent appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.
delivered the opinion of the. court.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court for the district of Maryland.'
The. decree from which, the appeal has been taken was passed by the Circuit Court on the 17th day of November, 1855, and the appeal was prayed on the same day in open court. But ,it was not prosecuted to the next succeeding term of this court, and no transcript of the record was filed here during that term. But a transcript has been filed at the present term of .this court, and the ease dockéted. And a motion is made to dismiss it, upon the ground that the appeal is not legally, before this court, according to the act of Congress regulating appeals.
The construction of this act of Congress, and the practice of this court under it, has been settled by the cases of Villalobos v. The United States, (6 Howard, 81,) and The United States v. Curry, (6 Howard, 106.) The transcript must he filed in this eourt-and the case docketed at the term next succeeding the appeal, in order to give this court jurisdiction. ' This case must therefore he dismissed.
But the dismissal does not bar.the appellant from taking and prosecuting another appeal at any time within five years from the date of the decree, provided the transcript is filed here and the ease docketed at the term next succeéding the date of such second appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Ferris, 18 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1881)
-
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)…on v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306, 309 (1869). The Court routinely dismissed cases that did not comply with that requirement. See, e. g., Mesa v. United States, 2 Black 721, 722 (1863) (per curiam); Edmonson, supra, at 309-310; Steamer Virginia v. West, 19 How. 182, 183 (1857). The same jurisdictional treatment was accorded to failure to serve notice on the defendant in error within the succeeding Term, see, e. g., United States v. Curry, 6 How. 106, 112-113 (1848); Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81, 88,…
-
Credit Co. Ltd. v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1888)…en, no citation issued, and no return of the record being made to this court at the ensuing term. That appeal, therefore, ceased to have any operation or effect, and cannofr avail the appellants. Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 203, 207; Steamer Virginia, 19 How. 182; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355; Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505; The Tornado, 109 U. S. 110; State v. Demarest, 110 U. S. 400 ; Killian v. Clark, 111 U. S. 784. On the 22d day of January, 1885, exactly two ye…
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