Shea v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 June 1915 |
| Citation | 224 F. 426 |
| Parties | SHEA et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Webster Kirtley & Conolly, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
E. S Wertz, of Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. Atty.
Before WARRINGTON, KNAPPEN, and DENISON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, January 29, 1915, and sentences of fine and imprisonment imposed. On March 27, 1915, writ of error and citation were issued, returnable April 26, 1915. On April 24th, two days before the return day, the District Judge made an order extending the time for preparing and filing bill of exceptions until May 30th. No extension of time for return has ever been made, and return has not been filed in this court. After the return day was past application made to the District Judge for an extension of time for return of citation was refused, on the ground that he had no authority to make it. On May 14th the United States moved to docket and dismiss the case, and on the same day plaintiffs in error filed a petition for the docketing of the cause and for order enlarging the time for return of citation until May 30th.
Subdivision 2 of our rule No. 18 (202 F. xii, 118 C.C.A. xiv) provides that for good cause shown the judge who signed the citation or any judge of this court, may enlarge the time for return 'at or before its expiration, the order of enlargement to be returned with the record and filed with the clerk of this court. ' Assuming that the District Judge had no authority to extend the time for return after it had once passed (Chamberlain Transp. Co. v. South Pier Coal Co. (C.C.A. 7) 126 F. 165, 61 C.C.A. 109), and that a judge of this court is equally without such power, it is nevertheless clear that the court itself to which the writ is returnable has the power to extend the time for return at any time during the term to which the writ is made returnable. Evans v. State Bank, 134 U.S. 330, 331, 10 Sup.Ct. 493, 33 L.Ed. 917; Green v. Elbert, 137 U.S. 615, 11 Sup.Ct. 188, 34 L.Ed. 792; Gould v. United States (C.C.A. 8) 205 F. 883, 126 C.C.A. 1; Pender v. Brown (C.C.A. 4) 120 F. 496, 56 C.C.A. 646. The term to which the writ was made returnable has not yet passed.
Having jurisdiction to extend the time for return, we should exercise it; for it is clear that the failure to procure an extension of time before the return day was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonet v. South Porto Rico Sugar Co.
...citing Gangler v. Rice (C.C.A.6th Cir.) 33 F.(2d) 119; Moran v. Peck (C.C.A.6th Cir.) 294 F. 80; and Shea v. United States (C.C.A.6th Cir.) 224 F. 426. In support of his counter motion and as a reason why we should exercise our discretion and grant the counter motion, the defendant suggests......
-
Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Snyder
...Metal Wheel Co. v. Foyer Bros. & Co., 6 Cir., 223 F. 350; Ainsworth v. Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 3 Cir., 104 F.2d 83; Shea v. United States, 6 Cir., 224 F. 426. As an additional reason for dismissal, appellee urges the failure of appellant to file with the clerk of the district court, assig......
-
Moran v. Peck
...294 F. 80 MORAN v. PECK. No. 3999.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.December 4, 1923 ... Slabaugh, ... Young, ... make a retroactive extension (Shea v. U.S. (C.C.A ... 6) 224 F. 426, 140 C.C.A. 120), and it is our practice ... to do so, upon the ... ...
-
Gangler v. Rice
...court has power in its discretion to extend the time under such circumstances so as to authorize the filing of the return. Shea v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 224 F. 426. The October, 1926, term of this court, to which the appeal was returnable, and the October, 1927, term have expired. It has been ......