United States v. Young
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 153,94 U.S. 258 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. YOUNG |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON motion of the United States to dismiss an appeal from the Court of Claims, and of the appellee for a writ of certiorari.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. W. W. McFarland for the appellee.
During the pendency of this suit in this court the Court of Claims, assuming to act under the authority of sect. 1088, Rev. Stat., has granted a new trial, and the United States now ask to dismiss their appeal. This we have often decided they have the right to do. Latham's and Deming's Appeals, 9 Wall. 145. In United States v. Ayres, 9 id. 610, the motion to dismiss was made by the appellee and resisted by the United States; but it was held 'that the order granting the new trial has the effect of vacating the former judgment, and to render it null and void;' and the appeal was consequently dismissed. The same principle was recognized in United States v. Crussell, 12 id. 175, Ex parte Russell, 13 id. 664, and Ex parte United States, 16 id. 699.
The appellee asks, however, that the cause may be retained, and that the proceedings under which the new trial was granted may be brought here by writ of certiorari for re-examination. Unless this can be done, he admits that the United States should be permitted to dismiss their appeal.
We have only such appellate jurisdiction as has been conferred by Congress, and in the exercise of such as has been conferred we can proceed only in the manner which the law prescribes. Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 119; Durosseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 314; United States v. Curry, 6 How. 113; Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 251.
From the judgments of the Court of Claims appeals are allowed to this court (sect. 707, Rev. Stat.), but no provision has been made for writs of error. Consequently, we cannot proceed by writ of error to review the decisions of that court.
At common law, the writ of certiorari is used for two purposes: 1. As an appellate proceeding for the re-examination of some action of an inferior tribunal; and, 2. As auxiliary process to enable a court to obtain further information in respect to some matter already before it for adjudication. It is for the last purpose only that the writ is employed in this court.
In the present case the writ is asked, not to bring here any part of the record of the Court of Claims as it existed when the appeal was taken, but to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yost
... ... The ... effect of the granting of the motion for a new trial was to ... place the case in the same position as to all issues as it ... stood upon the date of the original filing of the ... declaration ... 46 C ... J., pages 461, 462, 463, 464; U. S. v. Young, 24 ... L.Ed. 153; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 22 L.Ed. 69; ... U. S. v. Ayers, 19 L.Ed. 627; Wright v. Jackson ... Construction Co., 138 Tenn. 145, 196 S.W. 488; Hardy ... v. O'Pry, 59 So. 73, 102 Miss. 197; Dean v ... Board of Supervisors, 99 So. 563, 135 Miss. 268; ... Bates ... ...
-
Montgomery Ward Co v. Duncan
...statute or formal rule: Tomberlin v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.R. Co., 211 Wis. 144, 149, 246 N.W. 571, 248 N.W. 121. 15 United States v. Young, 94 U.S. 258, 24 L.Ed. 153; Young v. United States, 95 U.S. 641, 24 L.Ed. 467; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665, 671, 6 S.Ct. 901, 903, 29 L.Ed. 1013......
-
United States v. Broude
...of that court in this case, as in other cases on the commonlaw side, is not reviewable by this court by writ of certiorari (United States v. Young, 94 U.S. 258), but only by writ of error, which does not lie until final judgment, disposing of the whole case, and adjudicating all the rights,......
-
American Construction Co v. Jacksonville Ry Co Same v. Pennsylvania Co For Insurance On Lives and Granting Annuities
...by congress. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321, 327; Durousseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch, 307, 314; Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103, 119; U. S. v. Young, 94 U. S. 258; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381; Bank v. Peters, 144 U. S. 570, 572, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. Under the judiciary act of 1789, and other acts......