Caillot v. DeetkenAnnotate this Case
113 U.S. 215 (1885)
U.S. Supreme Court
Caillot v. Deetken, 113 U.S. 215 (1885)
Caillot v. Deetken
Submitted January 12, 1885
Decided January 26, 1885
113 U.S. 215
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
This Court can acquire no jurisdiction under a writ of error where the return to it is made by filing the transcript of the record here after the expiration of the term of this Court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
It has been repeatedly decided by this Court that where no return has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court, this Court has acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and, the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must therefore be dismissed. Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 624.
In the case before us, the writ of error was filed in the circuit court in which the record was March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this Court November 28, 1884. Two full terms of the Court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the circuit court and its return with the transcript into this Court.
It must therefore be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.