Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Casey v. Sterling Cider Co.

15 F.2d 52

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1926-10-27
Topic
general

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge. On December 21, 1923, this court entered an order affirming the judgment of the District Court in the above-entitled case; said judgment having been rendered in favor of the Sterling Cider Company, and the government having prosecuted a writ of error to this court. The Sterling Cider Company now (at the October term, 1926) presents a motion asking that we recall our mandate and amend the order by adding thereto the words “with interest.” The government objects to this. As the term at which the order of December 21, 1923, was entered has long since expired, and the. modification desired would involve a matter of substance, and not of mere form, we are without power to make the modification, and the motion must be denied. Schell v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Casey v. Sterling Cider Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
CASEY v. STERLING CIDER CO.,15 F.2d 52(1st Cir. 1926)
CASEY v. STERLING CIDER CO.
No. 1623.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 27, 1926.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Action by the Sterling Cider Company against Andrew J. Casey, formerly acting Collector of Internal Revenue. Judgment for plaintiff (285 F. 885) was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (294 F. 426). On plaintiff's motion that Circuit Court of Appeals recall its mandate, and amend its order affirming judgment, by adding thereto the words "with interest." Motion denied.
William W. Armstrong, of Rochester, N.Y., and George R. Farnum, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Boston, for plaintiff in error.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
On December 21, 1923, this court entered an order affirming the judgment of the District Court in the above-entitled case; said judgment having been rendered in favor of the Sterling Cider Company, and the government having prosecuted a writ of error to this court.

The Sterling Cider Company now (at the October term, 1926) presents a motion asking that we recall our mandate and amend the order by adding thereto the words "with interest." The government objects to this.

As the term at which the order of December 21, 1923, was entered has long since expired, and the modification desired would involve a matter of substance, and not of mere form, we are without power to make the modification, and the motion must be denied. Schell v. Dodge,107 U.S. 629,2 S. Ct. 830,27 L. Ed. 601; E.G. Staude Mfg. Co. v. Labombarde, 247 F. 879, 160 C.C.A. 101.

The motion is denied.Page 190