Caillot v. Deetken
This text of 113 U.S. 215 (Caillot v. Deetken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
It has been repeatedly decided by this court that where no return.has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the Circuit Court, this court has, acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must, therefore, be dismissed. Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavasos, 6 Wall. 355, 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 624.
In the case before us the writ of error was filed in the Circuit Court in which, the record was March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this court November 28,1884. Two full terms of the court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the Circuit Court and its return with the transcript into this court.
It must, therefore, be
Dismissed for womt of jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
113 U.S. 215, 5 S. Ct. 432, 28 L. Ed. 983, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caillot-v-deetken-scotus-1885.