Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Jones

United States v. Jones, 149 U.S. 262 (1893)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1893-05-01
Topic
general

The Chief Justice: Judgment was rendered in this case July 18, the writ of error sued out and allowed July 23, and the court adjourned for the term,-July 30, 1889. So far as *263 disclosed by the record the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge or signed by him until October 7, 1889, and no order was entered extending the time for its presentation, nor was there any consent of parties thereto, nor any standing rule of court which authorized such approval. The bill of exceptions was therefore improvidently allowed. Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jones. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
UNITED STATES v. JONES,149 U.S. 262(1893)
13 S.Ct. 840
UNITED STATESv. JONES.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF LOUISIANA.
No. 262.
Submitted April 24, 1893.
Decided May 1, 1893.
A bill of exceptions signed after the final adjournment of the court for the term, without an order extending the time for its presentation, or the consent of parties thereto, or a standing rule authorizing it to be done, is improvidently allowed; and when the errors assigned arise upon the bill, the judgment will be affirmed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Parkerfor plaintiffs in error.Mr. T AlexanderandMr. N.C. Blanchardfor defendants in error
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:
Judgment was rendered in this case July 18, the writ of error sued out and allowed July 23, and the court adjourned for the term, July 30, 1889. So far asPage 263disclosed by the record the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge or signed by him until October 7, 1889, and no order was entered extending the time for its presentation, nor was there any consent of parties thereto, nor any standing rule of court which authorized such approval. The bill of exceptions was therefore improvidently allowed.Millerv.Ehlers,91 U.S. 249;Jonesv.Grover Baker Sewing Machine Co., 131 U.S. Appx. cl;Michigan Insurance Bankv.Eldred,143 U.S. 293. As the errors assigned arise upon the bill of exceptions, we are compelled to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.Affirmed.