In re Walsh

Fifth Circuit

In re Walsh

69 F.2d 971, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3727

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1934

DocketNo. 7347

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 F.2d 971 (In re Walsh) 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

In re Walsh, 69 F.2d 971, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3727 (5th Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Walsh seeks a mandamus nisi against the District Judge to require him to settle and allow a bill of exceptions, touching the proper contents of which they differ, in connection with an appeal to this court. It appears that Walsh, who was the defendant in a suit at law, won the verdict, but a new trial was granted on a motion filed in due time but not set down for hearing within ten days as required by a local rule of the District Court. We think the appeal so clearly unsustainable that a mandamus in aid of it could under no circumstances he granted. The District Court had full power within the term to grant a new trial for the reasons contained in the motion, which appear to he of a usual nature. 28 USCA § 391. The local rule limiting the time for its hearing is a mere rule of practice a disregard of which would not affect the jurisdiction of the court to grant the new trial. Abbott v. Brown, Marshal, 241 U. S. 606, 36 S. Ct. 689, 60 L. Ed. 1199. Indeed, such a rule made by a court may be dispensed with, by the court that made it to advance justice in a special ease. Wallace v. Clark, 29 Fed. Cas. page 72, No. 17,098. The order granting the now trial was jurisdictionally valid. The granting of it under all the decisions was in the discretion of the court. It leaves the ease pending in the District Court, without a final judgment to be appealed from.

Mandamus nisi denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Walsh seeks a mandamus nisi against the District Judge to require him to settle and allow a bill of exceptions, touching the proper contents of which they differ, in connection with an appeal to this court. It appears that Walsh, who was the defendant in a suit at law, won the verdict, but a new trial was granted on a motion filed in due time but not set down for hearing within ten days as required by a local rule of the District Court. We think the appeal so clearly unsustainable that a mandamus in aid of it could under no circumstances he granted. The District Court had full power within the term to grant a new trial for the reasons contained in the motion, which appear to he of a usual nature. 28 USCA § 391. The local rule limiting the time for its hearing is a mere rule of practice a disregard of which would not affect the jurisdiction of the court to grant the new trial. Abbott v. Brown, Marshal, 241 U. S. 606, 36 S. Ct. 689, 60 L. Ed. 1199. Indeed, such a rule made by a court may be dispensed with, by the court that made it to advance justice in a special ease. Wallace v. Clark, 29 Fed. Cas. page 72, No. 17,098. The order granting the now trial was jurisdictionally valid. The granting of it under all the decisions was in the discretion of the court. It leaves the ease pending in the District Court, without a final judgment to be appealed from.

Mandamus nisi denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 F.2d 971, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-walsh-ca5-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack