Small v. Northern Pacific Railroad

Supreme Court

Small v. Northern Pacific Railroad

134 U.S. 514, 10 S. Ct. 614, 33 L. Ed. 1006, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1990

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 31, 1890

Docket226

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 U.S. 514 (Small v. Northern Pacific Railroad) 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

Small v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 134 U.S. 514, 10 S. Ct. 614, 33 L. Ed. 1006, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1990 (1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Small filed his bill in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, of the State of Minnesota, whence the cause was subsequently removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, and, upon hearing, resulted on the 24th day of June, 1884, in a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill, and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant for its costs to be taxed; On the 25th day of June, 1884, the complainant' prayed an appeal to this court, which was granted. On the 21st day of May, 1886, complainant filed an *515 appeal.bond and a citation was issued, returnable at the October term, 1886, dated April 30, 1886. The record herein was filed October 19, 1886. /The only appeal which from the record before us appears to have been prayed and allowed was that of the 25th day of June, 1881.

But, as we have said many times before,. inasmuch as the record was not filed at the term succeeding the allowance of the appeal, that appeal ceased to have any operation or effect,- and the case stood as if it had never been allowed. There was no allowance of an appeal after that, and when the record was filed on the 19th day of October, 1886, this was not done in pursuance of an appeal still in force,- nor could an appeal ■hen have -been allowed, as two years had expired from the ate of the. final decree.'' This appeal was • not “ taken ” as -ovided, and wé are, therefore, compelled to dismiss it. Credit Company v. Arkansas Centra l Railway, 128 U. S. 258; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104; Evans v. State National B ank, ante, 330.

■Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Small filed his bill in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, of the State of Minnesota, whence the cause was subsequently removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, and, upon hearing, resulted on the 24th day of June, 1884, in a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill, and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant for its costs to be taxed; On the 25th day of June, 1884, the complainant' prayed an appeal to this court, which was granted. On the 21st day of May, 1886, complainant filed an *515 appeal.bond and a citation was issued, returnable at the October term, 1886, dated April 30, 1886. The record herein was filed October 19, 1886. /The only appeal which from the record before us appears to have been prayed and allowed was that of the 25th day of June, 1881.

But, as we have said many times before,. inasmuch as the record was not filed at the term succeeding the allowance of the appeal, that appeal ceased to have any operation or effect,- and the case stood as if it had never been allowed. There was no allowance of an appeal after that, and when the record was filed on the 19th day of October, 1886, this was not done in pursuance of an appeal still in force,- nor could an appeal ■hen have -been allowed, as two years had expired from the ate of the. final decree.'' This appeal was • not “ taken ” as -ovided, and wé are, therefore, compelled to dismiss it. Credit Company v. Arkansas Centra l Railway, 128 U. S. 258; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104; Evans v. State National B ank, ante, 330.

■Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 U.S. 514, 10 S. Ct. 614, 33 L. Ed. 1006, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-northern-pacific-railroad-scotus-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack