KEYSER V. FARR
| Decision Date | 01 January 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U. S. 265 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1. Where, after the allowance of an appeal, the required supersedeas bond was duly approved and the cause entered here, the court below had no longer any control over the decree, and its subsequent order vacating that allowance is void.
2. Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U. S. 745, distinguished.
Motion on the part of the appellants for a writ of supersedeas and on the part of the appellees to dismiss.
The decree in this case was rendered on the 26th of October, 1881. The record also shows that the court on the same day entered an order allowing an appeal and fixed the amount of the bond. On the 29th and 31st of October, bonds for the appeal and supersedeas were executed by all the several appellants and approved by the chief justice of the court. On the last day named, the case was docketed in this Court and a transcript of the record filed. Afterwards, on the 14th of November but during the term at which the order allowing the appeal was entered, the appellees moved the court below to require additional security from the appellants, Keyser, Howard, and Smith. On the hearing of this motion, the court entered an order purporting to set aside and vacate the former allowance of an appeal, but at the same time made a new allowance to take effect on that day. Upon this state of facts, the appellants, fearing that execution may issue notwithstanding their appeal docketed here, move for an order restraining the court below from proceeding to enforce the decree, and the appellees move to dismiss 1, because the allowance of the appeal has been vacated, and 2, because the value of the matter in dispute is less than ,500.
After the acceptance of the bonds for the appeal and the docketing of the cause in this Court, the jurisdiction of the court below was gone. From that time, the suit was cognizable only in this Court. In Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U. S. 745, there was nothing more than the formal order of allowance entered, as in this case, with the final decree. Such an order, while in that condition, it was held, was subject to the control which every court retains over its ordinary judgments during the term. In Draper v. Davis, 102 U. S. 370, however, it was decided that after a bond had been accepted by one of the judges in accordance with such an order of allowance, the jurisdiction was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Ellenbogen
...to control when a case is on appeal in the Supreme Court, e. g., Draper v. Davis, 102 U.S. 370, 26 L.Ed. 121 (1880); Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 26 L.Ed. 1025 (1882); and it has been invoked in the case of certiorari, Nemec v. United States, 184 F.2d 355 (9 Cir. 1950). There is nothing in......
-
U.S. v. Liddy
...to modify the judgment by resentencing the prisoner. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. at 214, 58 S.Ct. 164; Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 266, 26 L.Ed. 1025 (1882). A unanimous panel of this court has held that a 'District Court . . . was without authority to vacate the general sentence pr......
-
Coulter v. Great Northern R. Co.
... ... the lower court during the pendency of the appeal. 1 Am. and ... Eng. Enc. L. 623; Draper v. Davis, 102 U.S. 370, 26 ... L.Ed. 121; Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 26 L.Ed ... 1025; Contes v. Wilkins, 94 N.C. 174; State v ... Roland, 36 La.Ann. 192; Stone v. Spellman, 16 ... ...
-
Martin v. U.S.
...appears to me to be settled law. See Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 214, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937); Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 266, 26 L.Ed. 1025 (1882); United States v. Liddy, supra at 686-688 (MacKinnon, J., dissenting); United States v. Grabina, 309 F.2d 783, 785 (2nd......