Coulliette v. Thomason

Fifth Circuit

Coulliette v. Thomason

50 F. 787, 1 C.C.A. 675, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1280

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 1892

DocketNo. 18

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 50 F. 787 (Coulliette v. Thomason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coulliette v. Thomason, 50 F. 787, 1 C.C.A. 675, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1280 (5th Cir. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pardee, Circuit Judge.

The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case because no assignment of errors was filed in the court below, or forms part of the transcript of record. The failure to make an assignment of errors, under rule 11 of the rules of this court, is sufficient ground to refuse to hear counsel, but not, perhaps, in all cases sufficient to dismiss the appeal. In this case, however, we find, not only an omission of the assignment of errors, hut a failure to file briefs, and that an examination of the record does not show any plain error in the decree appealed from. And we notice in the record that the decree appealed from in the court below was rendered on the 11th day of October, 1890; that the motion and order for appeal to this court were not made nor granted until September 10, 1891, more than six months alter the date of the entry of the decree appealed from; that the order allowing the appeal made the same returnable more than 30 days after the date thereof; and that the citation was made returnable more than 30 days thereafter. The fact alone that the appeal was not taken until [788]*788more than six months after the entry of the decree appealed from (section 11 of the judiciary act of 1891) requires the appeal to be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

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

Pardee, Circuit Judge.

The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case because no assignment of errors was filed in the court below, or forms part of the transcript of record. The failure to make an assignment of errors, under rule 11 of the rules of this court, is sufficient ground to refuse to hear counsel, but not, perhaps, in all cases sufficient to dismiss the appeal. In this case, however, we find, not only an omission of the assignment of errors, hut a failure to file briefs, and that an examination of the record does not show any plain error in the decree appealed from. And we notice in the record that the decree appealed from in the court below was rendered on the 11th day of October, 1890; that the motion and order for appeal to this court were not made nor granted until September 10, 1891, more than six months alter the date of the entry of the decree appealed from; that the order allowing the appeal made the same returnable more than 30 days after the date thereof; and that the citation was made returnable more than 30 days thereafter. The fact alone that the appeal was not taken until [788]*788more than six months after the entry of the decree appealed from (section 11 of the judiciary act of 1891) requires the appeal to be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 F. 787, 1 C.C.A. 675, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coulliette-v-thomason-ca5-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack