Morse v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 201,201 |
| Citation | 70 L.Ed. 518,270 U.S. 151,46 S.Ct. 241 |
| Parties | MORSE v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. W. D. Mitchell, Sol, Gen., of Washington, D. C., and Assistant Attorney General Galloway, for the United States.
Mr. Hohn H. Morse, pro se.
John H. Morse, claiming that he had been illegally separated from the Civil Service of the United States, filed his petition in the Court of Claims for $4,000 for his salary. Upon a general traverse the case was heard and the court made findings of fact and entered judgment that the petition of the plaintiff should be dismissed on the merits. The judgment was entered on the 21st of January, 1924. On March 19, 1924, Morse filed a motion for a new trial. This motion was overruled by the court on May 4, 1924. On May 28, 1924, Morse presented a motion for leave to file a motion to amend the findings of fact. This motion for leave to file was overruled by the Court of Claims on June 2, 1924. On June 9, 1924, Morse presented a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider and grant a new trial, and on the same day the Court of Claims overruled the motion for leave to file. On September 5, 1924, Morse made application for an appeal to this court. The Court of Claims allowed the appeal on October 13, 1924. At the time of allowing the appeal, the Court of Claims filed a memorandum, calling attention to the dates upon which the steps referred to above had occurred and to the rule of the Court of Claims on the subject, and added:
'In this state of the record the court is in doubt whether an appeal is allowable, but grants the appeal to give plaintiff the benefit of any doubt upon the question.'
Rule 90 of the Court of Claims provides as follows:
Section 243 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1220), which was in force at the time the appeal herein was taken, but which was later repealed by the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, provided as follows:
'All appeals from the Court of Claims shall be taken within ninety days after the judgment is rendered, and shall be allowed under such regulations as the Supreme Court may direct.'
It is clear from the sequence of detes above given that more than 90 days elapsed between the overruling of the motion for a new trial and application for appeal by the appellant. The appellant contends that the motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial on June 9, 1924, prevented the beginning of the period of limitation within which application for an appeal could be made to the judgment of the Court of Claims, and therefore that the appeal taken on the 5th of September was within the statutory 90 days.
There is no doubt under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Tuna Corporation v. Ms Benares
...177 (1940); United States v. Seminole Nation, 299 U.S. 417, 421, 57 S.Ct. 283, 81 L.Ed. 316 (1937); Morse v. United States, 270 U.S. 151, 153-154, 46 S.Ct. 241, 70 L.Ed. 518 (1926); Kingman v. Western Manufacturing Co., 170 U.S. 675, 678, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192 (1898); Texas & P. Ry. C......
-
Safeway Stores v. Coe
...for taking an appeal is suspended by a seasonably filed motion for new trial or petition for rehearing. Morse v. United States, 270 U.S. 151, 154, 46 S. Ct. 241, 242, 70 L.Ed. 518. In that case the Court said: "The suspension of the running of the period limited for the allowance of an appe......
-
Atl. Greyhound Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n Of West Va.
...the time and appeal may be taken within the statutory time for appeal from the date of denial of the petition for rehearing. Morse v. United States, 270 U. S. 151; 70 Law Ed. 518; United States v. Seminole Nation, 299 U. S. 417, 81 Law Ed. 316." In Straley v. Payne, 43 W. Va. 185, 27 S.E. 3......
-
Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger Transp. Corp.
...88, 42 S.Ct. 196, 66 L.Ed. 475; Safeway Stores v. Coe, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 19, 136 F.2d 771, 148 A.L.R. 782; Morse v. United States, 270 U.S. 151, 153-154, 46 S.Ct. 241, 70 L.Ed. 518; Heffern v. The De Witt Clinton, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 550; The New England, C.C.N.H., 18 Fed.Cas. pp. 54, 55, No.10......
-
Jurisdiction and the federal rules: why the time has come to reform finality by inequitable deadlines.
...(36) See Hall, supra note 8, at 410 (citing Vaughn v. Am. Ins. Co., 15 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1926)). (37) See Morse v. United States, 270 U.S. 151, 153-54 (1926) ("There is no doubt under the decisions and practice in this court that where a motion for a new trial in a court of law, or a petit......