Harrington v. Holler

Supreme Court

Harrington v. Holler

111 U.S. 796, 4 S. Ct. 697, 28 L. Ed. 602, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1842

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 5, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 111 U.S. 796 (Harrington v. Holler) 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.

Bluebook

Harrington v. Holler, 111 U.S. 796, 4 S. Ct. 697, 28 L. Ed. 602, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1842 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is granted on the-authority of Insurance Company v. Comstock,Wall. 258, and Railroad Company v.Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. An order of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court, because of the failure of- the plaintiff in error to file the transcript and *797 have the cause docketed within the time required by law, is not'a final judgment or a final decision within the meaning of those terms as used in sections 702 and 1911 of the Revised Statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory. Section 702 provides for the review of final judgments and decrees by writ of error or appeal, and section 1911 regulates the mode and manner of taking the writ or procuring the alio wane of the appeal. The use of the term “ final decisions ” in section 1911 does not enlarge the' scope of the jurisdiction of this court. It is only a substitute for the words “ final judgments and decrees ” in section 702, and means the same thing.

The dismissal of the writ was a refusal to hear and decide the cause. The remedy in such a case, if any, is by mandamus to compel the court to entertain the case and proceed to its determination, not by writ of error to review what has been done. Ex parte. Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 647; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 165.

Dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is granted on the-authority of Insurance Company v. Comstock,Wall. 258, and Railroad Company v.Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. An order of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court, because of the failure of- the plaintiff in error to file the transcript and *797 have the cause docketed within the time required by law, is not'a final judgment or a final decision within the meaning of those terms as used in sections 702 and 1911 of the Revised Statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory. Section 702 provides for the review of final judgments and decrees by writ of error or appeal, and section 1911 regulates the mode and manner of taking the writ or procuring the alio wane of the appeal. The use of the term “ final decisions ” in section 1911 does not enlarge the' scope of the jurisdiction of this court. It is only a substitute for the words “ final judgments and decrees ” in section 702, and means the same thing.

The dismissal of the writ was a refusal to hear and decide the cause. The remedy in such a case, if any, is by mandamus to compel the court to entertain the case and proceed to its determination, not by writ of error to review what has been done. Ex parte. Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 647; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 165.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 U.S. 796, 4 S. Ct. 697, 28 L. Ed. 602, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-holler-scotus-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack