Zimmern v. United States, 766

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCARDOZO
Citation80 L.Ed. 1118,56 S.Ct. 706,298 U.S. 167
Docket NumberNo. 766,766
Decision Date27 April 1936

298 U.S. 167
56 S.Ct. 706
80 L.Ed. 1118
ZIMMERN et al.



No. 766.
Argued A ril 3, 1936.
Decided April 27, 1936.

Mr. Lawrence Koenigsberger, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Mr. Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., of Boston, Mass., for the United States.

Mr. Justice CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case is whether the petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals within the time prescribed by law.

The United States brought suit to set aside a deed by Samuel Zimmern to his wife, and another deed, in which the wife joined, to his children; a separate parcel of real estate being the subject of each. At the time of the conveyance Samuel Zimmern was indebted to the complainant for a deficiency of income taxes duly assessed against him. The deeds were attacked upon the ground that they

Page 168

had been made without consideration and with fraudulent intent. The District Court, after a trial, sustained the charge of fraud and gave judgment in favor of the complainant for the relief prayed for in the bill. Its decree, which was entered on March 3, 1934, directed a sale of the two parcels, and the payment of the proceeds to the United States to be applied upon the taxes after deducting what was due to the wife by reason of a homestead exemption allowed by the local law. Nothing was said in the decree as to the exception or reservation from the sale of her inchoate right of dower.

The term at which the cause was tried would have expired, unless extended, on May 28, 1934. However, before that date, the judge made an order extending the term for 90 days; the order being prefaced with the following recital: 'It appearing to the court that a decree was entered in this cause on March 3rd, 1934 and for good reason shown it will be necessary to modify or amend said decree.'1 No petition for rehearing in behalf of the wife, Leila Zimmern, appears in the record, nor any motion for an amendment. A petition in behalf of Samuel Zimmern does appear, but it was filed on August 11, 1934, when the time to appeal had already gone by if the original decree was then presently in force. Cf. Conboy v. First National Bank of Jersey City, 203 U.S. 141, 145, 27 S.Ct. 50, 51 L.Ed. 128. Two

Page 169

days later the judge made an order amending the decree by directing that the sale be subject to any dower rights of the wife, and in all other respects denying whatever motions were before him. Appeals by all the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Missouri v. Jenkins, 88-1150
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1990
    ...the matter another way, while the petition for rehearing is pending, there is no "judgment" to be reviewed. Cf. Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 169, 56 S.Ct. 706, 707, 80 L.Ed. 1118 (1936); Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co., 318 U.S. 203, 205, 63 S.Ct. 543, 544, 87 L.Ed.......
  • Safeway Stores v. Coe, 8206.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 29, 1943
    ...trials and petitions for rehearing suspend the time for appeal because they deprive the judgment of finality, Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118, it follows that when a court loses its jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial or petition for rehearin......
  • Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger Transp. Corp., 97
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 27, 1948
    ...v. Francis, 25 R.I. 226, 55 A. 686. 1 Whether this was a correct ruling, I shall discuss infra. 2 See, e. g., Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 169, 170, 56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118; Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co., 140 U.S. 25, 40, 11 S.Ct. 691, 35 L.Ed. 332; Basset v. United......
  • First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co., 11055.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1938
    ...Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354; United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118; Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31, 36, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986; Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U.......
  • 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