Vaughan v. American Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4708.,4708. |
| Citation | 15 F.2d 526 |
| Parties | VAUGHAN v. AMERICAN INS. CO. OF NEWARK, N. J. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. R. Whitaker, of Cartersville, Ga., and M. B. Eubanks, of Rome, Ga. (Finley & Henson, of Cartersville, Ga., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
T. A. Hammond, of Atlanta, Ga. (Smith, Hammond & Smith, of Atlanta, Ga., and Paul H. Doyal, of Rome, Ga., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
In this case it appears that the judgment which is sought to be reversed by the writ of error herein became final on May 25, 1925. On the same day an order was entered extending the term and allowing 90 days for perfecting a bill of exceptions. On August 12, 1925, within the 90 days allowed by the previous order, another order was entered extending the term for an additional 60 days from the date of the expiration of the original order, for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to present a petition for a writ of error and to have settled a bill of exceptions. On September 29, 1925, within the term of the second extension of time, a petition for a writ of error and a bill of exceptions were presented to the District Court. Defendant objected to the settlement of the bill of exceptions and the allowance of the writ of error on the ground that the time for taking the writ had elapsed. The District Court took the matter under advisement, and on October 8, 1925, approved the bill of exceptions and allowed the writ of error, and they were filed with the clerk on that day. However, in the course of a brief opinion, the court expressed a doubt as to the right of plaintiff in error to a review, but allowed it, in order that the appellate court might settle the point.
Defendant in error has moved to dismiss the writ on the ground that it was filed more than three months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reversed, and therefore comes too late under the provisions of Act Feb. 13, 1925. That act provides (section 8, paragraph c being Comp. St. § 1126b) that: "No writ of error or appeal intended to bring any judgment or decree before a Circuit Court of Appeals for review shall be allowed unless application therefor be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree."
And further (section 14 43 Stat. 942): "That this act shall take effect three months after its approval; but it shall not affect cases then pending in the Supreme Court, nor shall it affect the right to a review, or the mode or time for exercising the same, as respects any judgment or decree entered prior to the date when it takes effect."
So far as we are advised, the above-quoted provisions of the Act of February 13, 1925, have not heretofore been passed upon by the courts, but their provisions are too plain to require interpretation, and the many decisions in respect to similar statutes furnish a safe guide for their construction.
It is evident that the writ of error in this case is governed by the provisions of the Act of February 13, 1925, as pending cases, except in the Supreme Court, are not exempted from its provisions, if the judgment was entered after the act became effective, May 13, 1925. Of course, it was competent for Congress to adopt a law reducing the time in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benitez v. Bank of Nova Scotia
...waiver, consent, or even order of court." Accord, Robie v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, 1930, 8 Cir., 40 F.2d 871; Vaughan v. American Insurance Co., 1926, 5 Cir., 15 F.2d 526, 527; Sprague v. Chicago B. & Q. Railroad, 1927, 8 Cir., 17 F.2d 768. See Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Pillsbury, 1937, 301 U......
-
United States v. Reed
...the time. United States v. Beaman, 5 Cir., 61 F.2d 493; In re Hurley Mercantile Co., 5 Cir., 56 F.2d 1023. Cf. Vaughan v. American Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 15 F.2d 526; Walters v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 3 Cir., 76 F.2d 599. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied and we consider the case on its......
-
Morrow v. Wood
...the entry of judgment in the district court. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. 28 U.S. C.A. § 230; Vaughan v. American Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 15 F.2d 526; Northwestern Public Service Co. v. Pfeifer, 8 Cir., 36 F.2d 5; Cf. Crump v. Hill, 5 Cir., 104 F. 2d Rule 73(a) of the Rules o......
-
Dunfee v. Terwilliger
... ... This rule is well settled, and is accepted in both English and American courts. Holt v. Holt, 1 Chan. Cas. 190; Phyfe v. Wardell, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 268, 28 Am. Dec. 430 ... ...
-
Jurisdiction and the federal rules: why the time has come to reform finality by inequitable deadlines.
...appeal was jurisdictional, but allowing the requirement to be waived). (36) See Hall, supra note 8, at 410 (citing Vaughn v. Am. Ins. Co., 15 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. (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 th......