Rutan v. Johnson

Third Circuit

Rutan v. Johnson

130 F. 109, 64 C.C.A. 443, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4141

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 130 F. 109 (Rutan v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rutan v. Johnson, 130 F. 109, 64 C.C.A. 443, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4141 (3d Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In each of the two above-entitled cases the record discloses the same state of facts. Final judgment was entered on June 12, 1903. A bill of exceptions was signed and filed on September 22, [110]*1101903, and on the same day an assignment of errors was filed and a writ of error was allowed by the judge upon a petition presented and filed. The writ of error, however, was not issued until December 28, 1903, and on that day was filed in the court below. It follows, therefore, that the writ of error was not sued out within the time limited by the act of March 3, 1891 (chapter 517, § 11, 26 Stat. 829 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 552], namely, within six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed, and hence we have no jurisdiction. This conclusion is abundantly sustained by decisions of United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. United States v. Baxter, 51 Fed. 624, 2 C. C. A. 410; Stevens v. Clerk, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379; City of Waxahachie v. Coler, 92 Fed. 284, 34 C. C. A. 349; Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204, 207, 13 L. Ed. 665; Scarborough v. Pargood, 108 U. S. 567, 2 Sup. Ct. 877, 27 L. Ed. 824.

The writ of error in each of the above-entitled causes is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

In each of the two above-entitled cases the record discloses the same state of facts. Final judgment was entered on June 12, 1903. A bill of exceptions was signed and filed on September 22, [110]*1101903, and on the same day an assignment of errors was filed and a writ of error was allowed by the judge upon a petition presented and filed. The writ of error, however, was not issued until December 28, 1903, and on that day was filed in the court below. It follows, therefore, that the writ of error was not sued out within the time limited by the act of March 3, 1891 (chapter 517, § 11, 26 Stat. 829 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 552], namely, within six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed, and hence we have no jurisdiction. This conclusion is abundantly sustained by decisions of United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court. United States v. Baxter, 51 Fed. 624, 2 C. C. A. 410; Stevens v. Clerk, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379; City of Waxahachie v. Coler, 92 Fed. 284, 34 C. C. A. 349; Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204, 207, 13 L. Ed. 665; Scarborough v. Pargood, 108 U. S. 567, 2 Sup. Ct. 877, 27 L. Ed. 824.

The writ of error in each of the above-entitled causes is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 F. 109, 64 C.C.A. 443, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutan-v-johnson-ca3-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack