Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Wauton v. DeWolf

Wauton v. DeWolf, 142 U.S. 138 (1891)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1891-12-21
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice .Fuller delivered the opinion of the'court. This cause was docketed and dismissed November 3, 1891, upon a certificate of the clerk of the Circuit Court of the United •States of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for the Northern District of California, to the effect that in a certain cause pending in that court, wherein Florence W. Wauton was complainant and Frank E. DeWolf, Isabella 0.

Citator

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

Cited by
7 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Dismissal for Failure to Docket An appeal expires when the term at which it was returnable elapses without the record being filed; once the term has passed, the appeal has spent its force and cannot be revived by later action.
  2. Civil Procedure — Filing of Record and Excuses for Delay An appellant's assumption that the clerk of the lower court would transmit the completed transcript to the appellate court does not excuse a failure to file the record on or before the return day.
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Circuit Courts of Appeals Act The Act of March 3, 1891, establishing the Circuit Courts of Appeals, divested the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over cases dependent upon diverse citizenship, but the joint resolution of the same date preserved that jurisdiction as to pending cases and cases in which the writ of error or appeal was sued out or taken before July 1, 1891.
  4. Civil Procedure — Late Appeals An appeal taken after the date fixed by statute for preserving federal jurisdiction over a case comes too late, and the appellate court must deny leave to docket the case because the appeal would have to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, regardless of any question of laches.
Mr. Chief Justice .Fuller

delivered the opinion of the'court.

This cause was docketed and dismissed November 3, 1891, upon a certificate of the clerk of the Circuit Court of the United •States of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for the Northern District of California, to the effect that in a certain cause pending in that court, wherein Florence W. Wauton was complainant and Frank E. DeWolf, Isabella 0. DeWolf, and Horace M. Barnes were defendants, a final decree was rendered on the 7th of July, a.d. 1890, in favor of defendants and against, the complainant,, and that on the ,29th of September, 1890, complainant prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was allowed. A motion is now made to set aside the order of dismissal and for leave to docket the case and file the record.

The transcript submitted with the motion shows that, as stated in the certificate, the decree of the Circuit Court was entered July 7, 1890, and an appeal was allowed September 29, 1890, but nothing was done, and the case was not docketed here at the October term, 1890. On July 27, 1891, a bond on appeal was presented to and approved by the Circuit Judge, who on the same day signed a citation returnable to this court on September 19, 1891.

When the term elapsed at which the appeal of September 29, 1890, was returnable, without the filing of the record, that appeal had spent its force, Evans v. State Bank, 134 U. S. 330, and appellees caused the case to be docketed and dismissed as above Stated.

Conceding that the approval of the bond, July 27,1891, and the signing of the citation, were equivalent to the allowance of a second appeal, returnable to the present term, the transcript of record was not filed on or before the return day, nor delivered to our clerk until November 18,1891; and the sole excuse' for this delay which appellant presents, is that it was supposed that the clerk of the Circuit Court would transmit the transcript *140 when it was completed. It appears from the record that the suit involves -land situated in California, and was commenced in the state court against the defendants who were citizens of Rhode Island and New York, and after summons by publication, was removed on their application to the Circuit Court. The ground of Federal jurisdiction was diverse citizenship.

By the act of March 3, 1891, (26 Stat. 826, c. 517,) establishing the Circuit Courts of Appeals, the jurisdiction of this court, in cases-dependent upon diverse citizenship, was taken away; but by the joint resolution of March 3, 1891, (26 Stat. 1115,) ■the jurisdiction was preserved as to pending cases and cases wherein the writ of error or appeal should be sued out or taken before July 1, 1891.

So far then as this second and independent appeal is concerned, it came too late, and as, if the case were now docketed, under that appeal, it would have- to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, we are, without passing upon the questioh of laches, compelled to deny the motion.

Motion denied.