Exporters of Manufacturers Products v. Co
| Decision Date | 10 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON,No. 390,390 |
| Citation | 66 L.Ed. 663,42 S.Ct. 331,258 U.S. 365 |
| Parties | EXPORTERS OF MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS, Inc., v. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Henry M. Ward, of New York City, for plaintiff.
[Argument of Counsel from page 366 intentionally omitted] Wm. Wallace, Jr., of New York City, for defendant.
Asking instruction as provided by section 239, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1216), the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has sent up the statement and question which follow:
'This cause came here on a writ of error to a judgment in favor of the Butterworth-Judson Company in an action at law in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judgment resulted from the verdict of a jury and thereupon plaintiff in error took a writ.
'The stated terms of the trial court as prescribed by act of Congress begin each month on the first Tuesday thereof; but a general rule of that court provides as follows: 'For the purpose of taking any action which must be taken within the term of the court at which final judgment or decree is entered, each term of court is extended for ninety days from the date of entry of the final judgment or decree.'
'In respect of this case the ninety-day period above provided for, and therefore the term at which the final judgment in question was entered expired on the 24th of February, 1920.
'On March 1, 1920, a written stipulation was executed between the attorneys for the parties hereto in the words following: 'It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the November term of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York be extended to April 6, 1920, for the purpose of settling and filing the bill of exceptions herein.'
'Defendant in error then moved in this court for an order striking from the record the bill of exceptions so settled as above set forth, on the ground that the same had been settled, signed and made a part of the record herein in contravention of law, in that the term had expired.
'Upon consideration of this motion a question of law arises concerning which this court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court in order properly to decide the cause.
In the recent case of O'Connell v. United States, 253 U. S. 142, 146, 40 Sup. Ct. 444, 64 L. Ed. 827, we reaffirmed the doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joerns v. Irvin
...be set for argument upon the merits of the appeal. 1 Judge Rutledge was not then a member of the court. 2 Exporters v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U.S. 365, 42 S.Ct. 331, 66 L.Ed. 663; Harris v. United States, 4 Cir., 72 F.2d 982; Harris v. United States, 4 Cir., 70 F.2d 897; Baltimore & Oh......
-
Lonergan v. American Ry. Express Co.
...247 Mass. 183, 142 N. E. 40;Commonwealth v. Andler, 247 Mass. 580, 142 N. E. 921;Exporters of Manufacturers' Products, Inc., v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U. S. 365, 42 Sup. Ct. 331, 66 L. Ed. 663;G. L. c. 231, § 136. National Fertilizer Co. v. Fall River Five Cents Savings Bank, 196 Mass.......
-
Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric Co.
...entertain a motion for a new trial or to settle a bill of exceptions. U.S. v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35 Sup.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Exporters v. Butterworth Co., supra. In of the foregoing holdings, it is plain, from the facts in the case at bar, that the court below had no jurisdiction to make ......
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Pepper
...See United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 70, 35 S. Ct. 16, 59 L. Ed. 129.’ Exporters of Manufacturers' Products, Inc., v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U. S. 365, 369, 42 S. Ct. 331, 332, 66 L. Ed. 663. Our own decisions are clear and numerous to the same effect. Bar Association of City of B......