GREEN
v.
VAN BUSKERK
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 held that a judgment becomes final under federal law only when it is entered in the court from which execution can issue, and that a writ of error issued within ten days of such entry operates as a supersedeas to stay execution. The Court reversed its direction to issue execution in this case, finding it had been issued under a mistaken interpretation of the relevant statute, and ordered a writ to stay proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
We have already held, at . this term, in a case from Massachusetts,* that when the Supreme Court renders final judgment, and sends the judgment to a court below for execution, and with the judgment the record, a writ of error to review the judgment may be issued to the latter court.
In that case, it is true, no question was made in respect to the operation of the writ as a supersedeas; but we think that the true construction' of the act of Congress requires us to hold that a judgment cannot be regarded as final, in the sense of the act, until entered in a court from which execution can issue.
In the case now before us, the record was sent by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and the judgment was entered in the latter court in conformity with the direction of the former. This was, it is true, the judgment of the Court of Appeals as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court; but it became a final judgment, on which execution could issue only when entered, on the 16th February, 1866, in the Supreme Court, to which the record was returned, and where it remained. The uiúüuccessful party had ten days from that entry to take out a writ of error and make it a supersedeas; and he duly availed himself of this right by service of the writ of error ou the 20th February, 1866, and giving the required bonds.
The direction to issue execution was given under a mistaken construction of the act; and its issue makes it necessary that a writ to stay the proceedings be sent from this court.
Motion allowed.
*
McGuire v. The Commonwealth. (Motions.) Supra, 382.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Banking of Neb. v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1942)…is nevertheless immaterial whether the record is physically lodged in the one court or the other, since we have ample power to obtain it from either. Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 146. In reliance upon the early decision in Green v. Van Buskerk, 3 Wall. 448, the period for appeal or application for certiorari has on occasion been computed not from the judgment or order of the New York Court of Appeals, but from the judgment subsequently entered by the lower court upon the Court of Appeals’ remittitur.…
-
Foster v. Kansas, 112 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1884)
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Fields, 451 F.2d 1292 (6th Cir. 1971)
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