Ballance v. Forsyth

62 U.S. 389, 16 L. Ed. 143, 21 How. 389, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 656
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 21, 1859·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

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 *390 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.' ■

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ballance v. Forsyth, 62 U.S. 389, 16 L. Ed. 143, 21 How. 389, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 656 (1859).

62 U.S. 389 (Ballance v. Forsyth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomson v. Travelers' Ins. Co.
161 F. 867 (Ninth Circuit, 1908)
Property Owners' League v. City of San Juan
14 P.R. 85 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1908)
Clark v. Doerr
143 F. 960 (Fifth Circuit, 1906)
Giménez v. Brenes
10 P.R. 124 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1906)
Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v. Strickley
116 F. 852 (Eighth Circuit, 1902)
City of Wilmington v. Ricaud
90 F. 212 (Fourth Circuit, 1898)
Stevens v. Clark
62 F. 321 (Seventh Circuit, 1894)
State v. Mitchell
29 Fla. 302 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1892)
Dodd v. Una
40 N.J. Eq. 672 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1885)