Hewitt v. Filbert
| Decision Date | 21 December 1885 |
| Citation | 6 S.Ct. 319,29 L.Ed. 581,116 U.S. 142 |
| Parties | HEWITT v. FILBERT and others. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
C. C. Cole and Wm. F. Mattingly, for the motion.
S. S. Henkle, in opposition.
position.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal for want of a citation The facts are these: A decree was entered by the supreme court of the District of Columbia on the twenty-first of November, 1882, dismissing the bill in a suit between Robert C. Hewitt, complainant, and Lewis S. Filbert and others, defendants. On the same day an appeal was allowed in open court, but that appeal was never docketed in this court by the appellant. It was, however, docketed by the appellee, and dismissed under rule 9, on the fifteenth of October, 1883, but the mandate was not sent down until March 25, 1885. In the mean time, on the twenty-sixth of June, 1884, Hewitt appeared in the supreme court of the district, at general term, and, on his ex parte application, an order was entered allowing him a second appeal upon his giving security in the sum of $500. After the close of the term at which this order was made, and on the eighteenth of August, a bond was approved by one of the justices and filed in the office of the clerk of that court. The case was docketed in this court on the twentieth of August, 1884, but no citation has ever been issued or served.
Except in cases of appeals allowed in open court during the term at which the decree appealed from was rendered, a citation returnable at the same term with the appeal or writ of error is necessary to perfect our jurisdiction of the appeal or the writ, unless it has been in some proper form waived. The San Pedro, 2 Wheat. 142; Yeaton v. Lenox, 7 Pet. 220; Villabolos v. U. S.,, 6 How. 90; U. S. v. Curry, Id. 111; Castro v. U. S., 3 Wall. 50; Alviso v. U. S., 5 Wall. 824. In Dayton v. Lash, 94 U. S. 112, it was held that, if a citation was actually issued, but not served before the first day of the term to which it was returnable, leave might be granted to make the service during that term. In this way the language of the court in Villabolos v. U. S. and U. S. v. Curry, which seemed to require service as well as issue of the citation before the return-day of the appeal or writ of error, was to some extent qualified; but the authority of those cases as to the necessity of an actual issue of the citation and service before the end of the return-term was in no way impaired. On the contrary, it was fully recognized. So, in Railroad Co. v. Blair, 100 U. S. 661, where an appeal was allowed in open court at a term subsequent to that in which the decree appealed from was rendered, but when the solicitors of the appellee were present and had actual notice of what was done, leave was granted to issue a citation and have it served during the return-term of the appeal.
Appeals allowed by the court in session and acting judicially at the term when the decree was rendered have always been given a different effect from appeals allowed after the term or writs of error. Thus, in Reily v. Lamar, 2 Cranch, 349, decided in 1805, only two years after the act allowing appeals in cases of equity and admiralty and maritime jurisdiction was passed, (2 St. 244, c. 40, § 2,) it was stated by Chief Justice MARSHALL 'to be the opinion of the court that, the appeal having been prayed pending the court below, a citation was not necessary, and therefore the case was properly before the court' without a citation. It has since been decided that if the appeal is allowed in open court at the term, but the appeal-bond is not accepted until after the term, a citation will be necessary to bring in the parties. Sage v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Broaddus
...Bloomshire, 7 Wall. (U.S.) 307; Railroad v. Blair, 100 U.S. 661; Peugh v. Davis, 110 U.S. 227; Dodge v. Knowles, 114 U.S. 430; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U.S. 142. The allowing the appeal herein is the criterion of jurisdiction, and not the affidavit for appeal; the latter is amendable. Crum v.......
-
Blackburn v. Morrison
...Folsom, 123 U.S. 725, 8 S. Ct. 334, 31 L. Ed. 292; Dodge v. Knowles, 114 U.S. 430, 5 S. Ct. 1197, 29 L. Ed. 144; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U.S. 142, 6 S. Ct. 319, 29 L. Ed. 581. ¶3 When an appeal shall be docketed in the appellate court, after it has been taken, is a matter generally regulated......
-
Pueblo de Taos v. Archuleta
...is asserted that where the appeal was taken in open court, and in term time, service of citation is unnecessary. Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. 142, 6 S. Ct. 319, 29 L. Ed. 581; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104, 115, 9 S. Ct. 443, 32 L. Ed. 872; 8 Hughes Fed. Pr. § 5482. It is not clear tha......
- Lockman v. Lang
-
Jurisdiction and the federal rules: why the time has come to reform finality by inequitable deadlines.
...Credit Co. v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 258 (1888); Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 306 (1869)). (35) See Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U.S. 142, 145 (1885) (finding that failure to obtain certification to file an appeal was jurisdictional, but allowing the requirement to be (36) See ......