Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Harrington v. Holler

Harrington v. Holler, 111 U.S. 796 (1884)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1884-05-05
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. This motion is granted on the-authority of Insurance Company v. Comstock,Wall. 258, and Railroad Company v.Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. An order of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court, because of the failure of- the plaintiff in error to file the transcript and *797 have the cause docketed within the time required by law, is not'a final judgment or a final decision within the meaning of those terms as used in sections 702 and 1911 of the Revised Statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Harrington v. Holler. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
31 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Writs of Error to Territorial Courts An order of the Supreme Court of a Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court for failure of the plaintiff in error to file the transcript and docket the cause within the time required by law is not a final judgment or final decision within the meaning of the statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to the United States Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of the Territory. 111 U.S. at 796
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Statutory Construction The use of the term "final decisions" in section 1911 of the Revised Statutes does not enlarge the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction; the phrase is merely a substitute for the words "final judgments and decrees" in section 702 and means the same thing. 111 U.S. at 796
  3. General — Mandamus — Remedy for Refusal to Hear Cause The dismissal of a writ of error for failure to docket the cause in time is a refusal to hear and decide the cause; the appropriate remedy, if any, is mandamus to compel the court to entertain the case and proceed to its determination, not a writ of error to review what has been done. 111 U.S. at 796
HARRINGTON v. HOLLER,111 U.S. 796(1884)
4 S.Ct. 697
HARRINGTON Anotherv. HOLLER.
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON TERRITORY.
Submitted April 21st, 1884.
Decided May 5th, 1884.
Practice. A decision of the Supreme Court of a Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court because of failure to docket the cause in time is not a final judgment or decision within the meaning of the statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to this court. Mandamus is the proper remedy in such case.
This came up on motion to dismiss the writ of error.
Mr. John H. Mitchellfor defendant in error moving.Mr. S.S. Burdettfor plaintiff in error opposing.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion is granted on the authority ofInsurance Companyv.Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, andRailroad Companyv.Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. An order of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court, because of the failure of the plaintiff in error to file the transcript andPage 797have the cause docketed within the time required by law, is not a final judgment or a final decision within the meaning of those terms as used in sections 702 and 1911 of the Revised Statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory. Section 702 provides for the review of final judgments and decrees by writ of error or appeal, and section 1911 regulates the mode and manner of taking the writ or procuring the allowance of the appeal. The use of the term "final decisions" in section 1911 does not enlarge the scope of the jurisdiction of this court. It is only a substitute for the words "final judgments and decrees" in section 702, and means the same thing.

The dismissal of the writ was a refusal to hear and decide the cause. The remedy in such a case, if any, is by mandamus to compel the court to entertain the case and proceed to its determination, not by writ of error to review what has been done.Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 647;Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 165.Dismissed.