CHARLES BALLANCE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT FORSYTH, LUCIENE DUMAIN, AND ANTOINE R. BOUIS
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 Supreme Court dismissed Charles Ballance's appeal from a lower court decision because no appeal had been properly taken in the District Court, and the Court held that the parties' written consent to waive procedural irregularities could not confer jurisdiction that did not exist under law. The Court offered Ballance the opportunity to cure the defect by properly taking an appeal in the District Court and refiling his case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was dismissed on the 20th. of December last, because it did not appear that an appeal had been taken in the District Court. A motion has now béen made to reinstate the. case, and, in support of that motion, a written agreement, signed by the counsel for the appellant and appellee, has been filed, consenting to reinstate the case, to waive all irregularities,- and to try the case on the merits.
But the consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this court, where the law does not give it. And, without an appeal taken in the District Court, this court has no jurisdiction, and the consent of parties cannot cure the defect. The motion is therefore overruled:
But if the plaintiff in error desires to supply the omission, and take an appeal in the District Court, and bring his case legally before us, he has leave, in order to save expense, to withdraw the transcript now filed, and to use it upon his appeal, leaving a receipt for it with the clerk of this court.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States, 226 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1912)
-
Keyes v. The United States, 109 U.S. 336 (U.S. 1883)