Ex parte Roberts
| Citation | 15 Wall. 384,82 U.S. 384,21 L.Ed. 131 |
| Parties | EX PARTE ROBERTS |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ON petition of M. O. Roberts for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Claims to require that court to hear, entertain and decide a certain motion made there by him for a new trial, and also to correct the records of the court in certain particulars set forth in the petition, the main question arising on the motion being whether the allowance of an appeal to this court by the Court of Claims, absolutely and of itself removes a cause from its jurisdiction, so that no order revoking such allowance can be made.
Messrs. T. Wilson and E. N. Dickerson, in support of the motion; Mr. C. H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, contra.
The CHIEF JUSTICE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.
The act of Congress, 3d March, 1863, authorizes appeals from the Court of Claims to this court under such regulations as this court may direct, provided such appeals be taken within ninety days after such judgment or decree.
By our third rule, regulating these appeals, we directed that this limitation of ninety days should 'cease to run from the time of the application for the appeal.' In other words, the appeal was taken, in the sense of the act, when the defeated party in the Court of Claims signified, by his motion for the allowance of an appeal, his desire to take one. But, by the same rule, we declared that an allowance by the court or the Chief Justice in vacation was essential to the perfecting of an appeal; so that there might be, between the motion for the appeal and its allowance, an interval of time, greater or less as might be determined by the convenience of counsel, subject to the discretion of the court.
The judgment in the case before us was rendered on the 27th of February, 1871. On the 16th of May, a motion for new trial was made, and, on the 22d of the same month, there was filed a motion for the allowance of an appeal. This motion was in time, and, unless there be some rule of the Court of Claims to the contrary, we perceive no objection to hearing the motion for new trial at any time after it was made, or, if that should be refused, to the subsequent allowance of the appeal. It appears, however, that the attorney for the petitioners, apprehending some prejudice to his motion for new trial from the motion for an appeal, entered into a stipulation with the Assistant Attorney-General, representing the United States, which was filed with the motion for an appeal, that the latter motion should not injuriously affect the former, or prevent a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris
...parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634, 649, 8 L.Ed. 810; New York Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Pet. 201, 303, 8 L.Ed. 949; Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 386, 21 L.Ed. 131; Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 270, 21 L.Ed. 493. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Co......
-
Mengel v. Justices of Superior Court
...Wagner, 249 U.S. 465, 39 S.Ct. 317, 63 L.Ed. 709;Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States, 289 U.S. 385, 53 S.Ct. 607, 77 L.Ed. 1273. 2. Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L.Ed. 131; Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699, 21 L.Ed. 507;In re Grossmayer, petitioner, 177 U.S. 48, 20 S.Ct......
- Sherman v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
-
In re Dowd
... ... should be answered in the affirmative, the application must ... be denied. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 251, 252, 6 Sup.Ct ... 734, 29 L.Ed. 868; Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 251, 252, 6 ... Sup.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868; Ex parte ... 634, 644, 8 L.Ed. 810; ... New York Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Pet. 291, ... 303, 8 L.Ed. 949; Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 386, 21 ... L.Ed. 131; Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, ... 270, 21 L.Ed. 493; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, ... ...