Parissi v. Telechron

Decision Date11 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 302,302
Citation75 S.Ct. 577,99 L.Ed. 867,349 U.S. 46
PartiesAnthony J. PARISSI, petitioner, v. TELECHRON, Inc., and General Electric Company
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


The judgment is reversed. The petitioner's notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the Distrct Court for the Northern District of New York, together with his appeal bond, was received at the office of the Clerk of the District Court within the 30 days prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2107, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2107, for filing a notice of appeal. In dispatching these papers the petitioner inadvertently failed to include the $5 fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1917, to be paid 'upon the filing' of a notice of appeal. The Clerk notified the petitioner of his omission, and declined to 'file' the notice of appeal until he received the $5 fee three or four days later. By that time the 30-day period for appeal had expired. Upon petitioner's motion the District Court made a nunc pro tunc order according the notice of appeal a filing date as of the date it was originally received by the Clerk.

The Court of Appeals, without opinion, dismissed the appeal as untimely. We think that the Clerk's receipt of the notice of appeal within the 30-day period satisfied the requirements of § 2107, and that untimely payment of the § 1917 fee did not vitiate the validity of petitioner's notice of appeal. Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 9 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 705, we disapprove. Our conclusion does not leave § 1917 without other sanctions.


To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Houston v. Lack
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1988
    ...Rules 3 and 4 even though the notice has not yet been formally "filed" by the clerk of the court. Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47, 75 S.Ct. 577, 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955); see also, e.g., Deloney v. Estelle, 661 F.2d 1061, 1062-1063 (CA5 1981); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 10......
  • Charlson Realty Company v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 13, 1967
    ...F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1952); Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd., Inc. v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 189 (8th Cir. 1952); Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955); Bolduc v. United States, 189 F.Supp. 640 (D.Maine, 1960); Bates Mfg. Co. v. United States, 303 U.S. 567, 58......
  • Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • May 19, 1989
    ...rule therein was paid. In so holding, the Keith court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955) (per curiam), upon which some courts have relied in recent years to support the proposition that payment of a filing......
  • Phillips v. Tangilag
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 17, 2021
    ..., 690 F.3d 844, 849 (7th Cir. 2012). The filing fee likewise does not affect our jurisdiction. See Parissi v. Telechron, Inc. , 349 U.S. 46, 47, 75 S.Ct. 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955) (per curiam). So the second notice of appeal gives us jurisdiction over this issue, whether Phillips should have......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT