Hart v. Wiltsee
| Decision Date | 11 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 2070.,2070. |
| Citation | 25 F.2d 863 |
| Parties | HART et al. v. WILTSEE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Charles F. Choate, Jr., and Nathan Matthews, both of Boston, Mass., for appellants Hart and others.
Powers & Hall, James N. Clark, and Robert H. Montgomery, all of Boston, Mass. (Frederick R. Ryan, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant Finsthwait.
Tillinghast & Collins, William R. Tillinghast, and James C. Collins, all of Providence, R. I., for appellants West and another.
Sherman L. Whipple, Claude B. Cross, and Frederick Foster, all of Boston, Mass., for appellees Wiltsee and others.
Arthur D. Hill, of Boston, Mass., Francis L. Kohlman, of New York City, Faneuil Adams, of Boston, Mass., and Saul J. Lance, of New York City, for appellees Stevens and others.
Romney Spring, of Boston, Mass., for appellees Kimball and others.
Lincoln Bryant, of Boston, Mass., for appellee Russell.
Before BINGHAM and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
In the above-entitled case a final decree was entered by order of this court on May 17, 1927, in which costs to appellants were awarded.
June 24, 1927, a petition for rehearing was filed, whch was denied on July 11, 1927.
On July 15, 1927, the appellees filed a motion for a stay of mandate, which was granted on August 2, 1927, until further order of this court.
December 1, 1927, an order of the Supreme Court (275 U. S. ___, 48 S. Ct. 119, 72 L. Ed. ___) denying the petition for certiorari was filed, and on the same date mandate was ordered to issue.
January 3, 1928, appellees filed a petition for an amendment of the final decree as to costs, which was denied on the same date.
January 4, 1928, mandate issued.
February 10, 1928, the appellees filed a motion to recall the mandate and to revoke or modify the final decree as to costs. Upon this motion parties have been heard and briefs filed.
The term of this court at which the final decree of May 17, 1927, was entered ended October, 1927, and after the close of that term this court had no power or jurisdiction to revoke or modify the award of costs made in that decree, unless the same were reserved by its order of October 3, 1927. See opinion of Chief Justice Taft in Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota (announced November 21, 1927) 275 U. S. 70, 48 S. Ct. 97, 72 L. Ed. ___; also Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 415, 26 L. Ed. 797; Schell v. Dodge, 107 U. S. 629, 2 S. Ct. 830, 27 L. Ed. 601; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 6 S. Ct. 901, 29 L. Ed. 1013; Jourolman et al. v. East Tennessee Land Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 85 F. 251. See, also, in this circuit, E. G. Staude Mfg. Co. et al. v. Labombarde et al., 247 F. 879, and Casey v. Sterling Cider Co. (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 52. All of these cases hold that, after the close of the term at which a final decree has been entered, it cannot be modified in any matter of substance, but only for clerical errors.
October 3, 1927,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glass Co v. Co
...at page 133, 41 S.Ct. at page 404, 65 L.Ed. 863. The circuit courts of appeal have uniformly observed the rule thus announced. Hart v. Wiltsee, 1 Cir., 25 F.2d 863; Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594; Montgomery v. Realty Acceptance Corp., 3 Cir., 51 F.2d 642; Fost......
-
Watson v. Gallagher
...Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244, 256, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed 1250; Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594; Hart v. Wiltsee, 1 Cir., 25 F.2d 863; Montgomery v. Realty Acceptance Corp., 3 Cir., 51 F.2d 642, 643; Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 4 Cir., 90 F.2d 948; Hawkins v.......
-
Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 3347.
...of the decree and not to its form. See Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70, 48 S.Ct. 97, 72 L.Ed. 168; Hart v. Wiltsee et al., 1 Cir., 25 F.2d 863, and cases there cited; Casey v. Sterling Cider Co., 1 Cir., 15 F. 2d 52, and Schell v. Dodge, 107 U.S. 629, 2 S.Ct. 830, 27 L.Ed. T......