A case dismissed January 8, 1873, because the counsel for the
appellant did not file a brief in the form required by the
amendment to the 21st rule, promulgated November 16, 1871, and to
be seen at large in 14 Wall. p. ix.
The Portland Company, a corporation of Maine, filed a petition
in the court just named to recover the drawback allowed by the 17th
section of the Act of June 30, 1864,
*
on certain locomotive engines exported by them. The engines were
manufactured by the company under a contract with the United
States, and the internal revenue tax thereon was paid. Afterwards
the engines were sold by the government at public auction, and the
company bought them. The Court of Claims dismissed the petition,
and the claimants appealed.
On the case's being called January 8, 1872, it was submitted by
the appellants on the record, no brief being filed in their
behalf.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, January 20, 1873, delivering the judgment of
the Court, said:
From time to time, the Court has adopted rules of practice
Page 82 U. S. 2
intended to facilitate the presentation of causes by counsel and
their consideration by the Court. Finding that these rules, through
the inattention of the bar, had failed in a great degree of their
intended effect, we promulgated at the last term and for the same
end an amended twenty-first rule, the fourth section of which
required that the brief should contain, in the order there
stated:
First, a concise abstract or statement presenting succinctly the
questions involved, and the manner in which they were raised;
Second, an assignment of the errors relied upon, setting out, in
cases brought up by writ of error, separately and specifically each
error asserted and intended to be urged, and in cases brought up by
appeal, as specifically as may be, the error alleged to exist in
the decree or, if the error be alleged in a ruling upon the report
of a master, stating the exception to the report and the action of
the court upon it;
Third, a brief of the argument exhibiting a clear statement of
the points of law or fact to be discussed, with a reference to the
pages of the record and authorities relied upon in support of each
point and containing, when a statute of a state is cited, so much
thereof as may be deemed necessary to the decision of the case,
printed at length.
The fifth section of the rule also required that when the error
allowed is to the charge of the court, the specification shall set
out the part referred to
totidem verbis, whether it be
instructions given or instructions refused.
And the sixth section required that when the error alleged is to
the admission or rejection of evidence, the specification shall
quote the full substance of the evidence admitted or rejected.
The necessity of strict compliance with these rules, especially
in view of the greatly augmented business of the Court, is evident.
It will facilitate as much the labors of the bar as those of the
bench. That counsel might have full notice of the rule, it was
required to take effect on the first day of the present month of
January, and the clerk was directed to have printed copies made of
the rule as amended, and send one
Page 82 U. S. 3
copy to each of the counsel in all cases pending and not yet
argued. In the case before us, this rule has been totally
disregarded on the part of the appellant.
We shall therefore in this case
Dismiss the appeal.
* 13 Stat. at Large 302, 303.
