Kerr v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Kerr v. United States

159 F. 428, 86 C.C.A. 408, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4051

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1907

DocketNo. 1,379

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 F. 428 (Kerr v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerr v. United States, 159 F. 428, 86 C.C.A. 408, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4051 (7th Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal review is sought of a judgment entered at law upon scire facias on a forfeited recognizance, with no writ of error issued. The doctrine is well settled that the Circuit Court of Appeals, alike with the Supreme Court, can review such proceedings at law only when brought by writ of error, and that no jurisdiction to that end arises through an appeal. See opinion of this court, in Stevens v. Clark, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379, reviewing the authorities; also Muhlenberg County v. Dyer, 65 Fed. 634, 13 C. C. A. 64. The objection, therefore, cannot be waived by appearance, nor be cured by amendment. In the absence of a writ of error, the cases of City of Wilmington v. Ricaud, 90 Fed. 212, 32 C. C. A. 578, and Alaska United Gold Min. Co. v. Keating, 116 Fed. 561, 53 C. C. A. 655, and the provisions of section 1005, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 714], which are cited as authority for amendment, are inapplicable.

The appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal review is sought of a judgment entered at law upon scire facias on a forfeited recognizance, with no writ of error issued. The doctrine is well settled that the Circuit Court of Appeals, alike with the Supreme Court, can review such proceedings at law only when brought by writ of error, and that no jurisdiction to that end arises through an appeal. See opinion of this court, in Stevens v. Clark, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379, reviewing the authorities; also Muhlenberg County v. Dyer, 65 Fed. 634, 13 C. C. A. 64. The objection, therefore, cannot be waived by appearance, nor be cured by amendment. In the absence of a writ of error, the cases of City of Wilmington v. Ricaud, 90 Fed. 212, 32 C. C. A. 578, and Alaska United Gold Min. Co. v. Keating, 116 Fed. 561, 53 C. C. A. 655, and the provisions of section 1005, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 714], which are cited as authority for amendment, are inapplicable.

The appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 F. 428, 86 C.C.A. 408, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-united-states-ca7-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack