United States ex rel. Schauffler v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

Second Circuit

United States ex rel. Schauffler v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

147 F. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4233

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 24, 1906·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, so called, taken from a judgment for the defendant in an action at law. Instead of obtaining a writ of error, the plaintiff in the suit in the court below served a notice of appeal upon the attorney for the defendant, and the judge of the court below indorsed it “Appeal allowed,” and afterwards signed a citation. This court did not obtain jurisdiction, and the motion is therefore granted. In Stevens v. Clark, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379, the authorities are collected, and that decision is in all respects in point.

Ordered accordingly.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, so called, taken from a judgment for the defendant in an action at law. Instead of obtaining a writ of error, the plaintiff in the suit in the court below served a notice of appeal upon the attorney for the defendant, and the judge of the court below indorsed it “Appeal allowed,” and afterwards signed a citation. This court did not obtain jurisdiction, and the motion is therefore granted. In Stevens v. Clark, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379, the authorities are collected, and that decision is in all respects in point.

Ordered accordingly.

United States ex rel. Schauffler v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 147 F. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4233 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

147 F. 228 (United States ex rel. Schauffler v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related