Where there is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia to this Court, the citation may be signed by any
justice of that court.
An appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to
this Court may be allowed by that court sitting in special
term.
From the transcript of the record, it appears that the
supersedeas bond in this case was in due form, and was approved by
the court.
This was a motion to dismiss. The grounds of the motion
sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia consists of
Page 113 U. S. 540
one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.
Rev.Stat.Dist.Col. § 750; 20 Stat. 320, c. 99, § 1. The law
provides for both special and general terms of the court, and for
an appeal from the special to the general term, but the judgments
and decrees, when rendered, are, whether they be at general or
special term, the judgments and decrees of the supreme court.
Rev.Stat.Dist.Col. §§ 753, 772. A general term is held by three
justices, two, however, constituting a quorum, and a special term
by one. Rev.Stat.Dist.Col. §§ 754, 757; 20 Stat. 320, c. 99, § 2.
By § 705 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended
February 25, 1879, 20 Stat. 320, c. 99, § 4, the final judgments
and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in
cases where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $2,500, may
be brought to this Court for review
"upon writ of error or appeal, in the same manner and under the
same regulations as are provided by law in cases of writs of error
on judgments, or appeals from decrees rendered in a circuit
court."
This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of the
District at a general term held by Chief Justice Cartter and
Associate Justices Hagner and Cox, which began on the first Monday
in April, 1884, and ended July 5, 1884. The transcript contains the
following:
"
[Filed July 8, 1884]"
"
SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA"
"Brooke Mackall, Jr."
"v. 8,118 Eq."
"Alfred Richards
et al."
"And now comes the said defendant, Alfred Richards, and appeals
to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decree of the
general term passed July 5, 1884, in the above cause against
him."
"WM. B. WEBB"
"
for defendant, Richards"
"The above appeal is allowed this 8th day of July, 1884."
"By the court."
"MCARTHUR,
Justice"
Page 113 U. S. 541
Then follows a citation in proper form, signed by the chief
justice of the court, bearing the same date as the order allowing
the appeal. This citation was served October 7, 1884. Next in the
transcript is the following:
"
I
n the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia"
"
the 10th day of July, 1884"
"Brooke Mackall, Jr."
"v. No. 8, 118, Eq. In Error"
"Alfred Richards
et al."
Then follows a supersedeas bond in due form, and at the foot
these words:
"Approved July 11, 1884 MCARTHUR,
Justice"
The appeal was docketed in this Court on the fifteenth of
October, 1884.
The grounds of the motion may be stated thus:
1. The citation was not signed by the justice who approved the
bond,
2. The citation was not served in time, and
3. Mrs. Richards and Leonard Mackall, who were defendants below,
have not joined in the appeal.
§§ 999, 1012, and 705 of the Revised Statutes, taken together,
provide in effect that when there is an appeal from the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia to this Court, the citation may
be signed by any justice of that court. Such an appeal is to be
taken under the same regulations as appeals from the circuit court.
§ 705. On appeals from the circuit court a judge of that court may
sign the citation. § 999. Clearly, therefore, when the appeal is
from the Supreme Court of the District, a justice of that court may
do the same thing.
The transcript in this case shows that the appeal was allowed by
the court, undoubtedly sitting in special term. This, we think, may
be done. An appeal in a proper case is a matter of right. The
decree appealed from was the decree of the supreme court, and the
court, while sitting in special term, was still the supreme court,
and, as such, capable of allowing an appeal to this Court from one
of its final decrees, though
Page 113 U. S. 542
rendered at general term. As the general term had closed, it was
quite proper to apply to the court sitting in special term for the
allowance of the appeal. The allowance by the court while in
session at special term would not do away with the necessity of a
citation because the allowance would not have been made at the same
term in which the decree was rendered.
Yeaton
v. Lenox, 7 Pet. 221;
Railroad v. Blair,
100 U. S. 662.
As the allowance was made by the court, it was quite regular for
the chief justice to sign the citation. The transcript also shows
that the bond was approved by the court. It seems to have been
presented to the court on the 10th of July and approved the next
day. What was done was, according to the transcript, "In the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia."
Even if the citation was not served in time, which we do not
decide, the failure to serve will not work a dismissal of the
appeal.
Dayton v. Lash, 94 U. S. 112.
The last ground of the motion to dismiss was not relied upon in
argument. The effect of what has been done was to allow a separate
appeal by Alfred Richards.
The motions are overruled.