Cambuston v. United States
Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
Citation | 95 U.S. 285,24 L.Ed. 448 |
Parties | CAMBUSTON v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
MOTION by the United States to dismiss an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of California.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The motion was submitted on printed arguments by the Solicitor-General for the United States, and by Mr. Edmond L. Goold for the appellant.
This is an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of California, in a proceeding under the passed March 3, 1851. 9 Stat. 631. The case was here at the December Term, 1857, when a former decree of the District Court was reversed, and the cause sent back for further hearing. United States v. Cambuston, 20 How, 59. The mandate was filed in the court below, May 5, 1859, and the further hearing resulted in a decree, Nov. 12, 1859, rejecting the claim. The court adjourned for the term on the first Monday in December, 1859, previous to which time no motion for a new trial or petition for rehearing had been filed.
On the 24th of February, 1860, Lansing B. Mizner, as 'a party in interest,' filed with the clerk of the court a petition for rehearing. What his interest actually was nowhere appears in the record. A copy of this petition was served on the district attorney of the United States the same day the original was filed in the clerk's office; and, March 13, 1860, the district attorney and the attorney for the claimant entered into the following stipulation:——
Nothing further was done until April 2, 1875, when the widow of Cambuston—he having died Jan. 22, 1869—appeared in court and asked to 'be permitted to become the party claimant of the land,' as executrix of the will of her deceased husband, which had been admitted to probate May 3, 1869. An order to this effect was made April 3, 1875, and on the same day the claimant asked that a new trial be granted, and that the decree rejecting the claim might be reversed. The parties thereupon appeared, and, after hearing, the court denied the motion. On the same day, April 3, 1875, this appeal was allowed, both from the final decree and the order refusing a new trial. The United States now move to dismiss the appeal, because taken too late.
The statute in force when the decree was rendered provided that writs of error and appeals should not be brought to this court except within five years after passing or rendering the decree or judgment complained of. 1 Stat. 85, sect. 22. As this decree was rendered Nov. 12, 1859, and the appeal not taken until April 3, 1875, it is clear that the motion to dismiss should be granted, unless the petition for rehearing or motion for a new trial § spended the operation of this statute.
In Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, it was held that a petition for rehearing filed during the term, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Payne v. Garth
... 285 F. 301 PAYNE, Director General of Railroads, v. GARTH et al. No. 5785. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. November 2, 1922 ... [285 F. 302] ... The cases so relied on are Brockett v. Brockett, 2 ... How. 238, 11 L.Ed. 251; Cambuston v. U.S., 95 ... U.S. 285, 287, 24 L.Ed. 448; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v ... Murphy, 111 U.S ... ...
-
Ayer v. Kemper
...A. 6). Accordingly, appellant's motion was properly denied, and the order is affirmed. 1 See, also, the dictum in Cambuston v. United States, 95 U. S. 285, 288, 24 L. Ed. 448, where it is said, with a reference to the predecessor of Rule 69, that in suits in equity the practice is even more......
-
Sanborn v. Bay
...after referring to Brockett v. Brockett, and quoting sections 726 and 987 of the Rev. Stats. of the United States, said at page 288 of 95 U.S. (24 L.Ed. 448): this legislation it is apparent that it was not the policy of Congress to suspend the operation of a judgment so as to allow an appl......
-
Willis v. Davis
...184 F. 889 WILLIS et al. v. DAVIS. No. 2,072.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.February 7, 1911 [184 F. 890] ... Mordecai ... Nor from a refusal to open a judgment. Connor v ... Peugh, 18 How. 394, 15 L.Ed. 432; Cambuston v ... United States, 95 U.S. 285, 24 L.Ed. 448. Nor from a ... refusal to reinstate a case after ... ...