Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Voorhees v. John T. Noye Manufacturing Co.

Voorhees v. John T. Noye Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 135 (1894)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1894-01-03
Topic: general

The Chief Justice: The decree in this cause was entered on January 7, 1891, at the November term, 1890, of the .Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, and at its foot the court minuted : “Lucas A. Yoorhees prays an appeal, which is allowed;” and also, “L. A. Yoorhees has leave to file motion for rehearing Saturday.” On the tenth of January, which was the Saturday following, the appliea-tion of L. A.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Voorhees v. John T. Noye Manufacturing Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 26 opinions

Headnotes

Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction Under the act of March 3, 1891, an appeal taken to the Supreme Court from a decree of a circuit court in a case in which jurisdiction rests solely on diverse citizenship, filed after July 1, 1891, does not vest the Supreme Court with jurisdiction, and a new appeal must instead be taken to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. 151 U.S. at 135
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Finality of Decrees A decree does not take final effect for purposes of appeal on the date it is entered where a timely application for rehearing is entertained by the court, but only upon disposition of that application. 151 U.S. at 135 (citing Aspen Mining Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31)
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction Where the circuit court has jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court does not, after July 1, 1891, a new appeal following denial of a rehearing must be taken to the proper Circuit Court of Appeals rather than to the Supreme Court. 151 U.S. at 135 (citing Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co. v. Grand Rapids Deposit Co., 146 U.S. 54)

VOORHEES v. NOYE MANUFACTURING CO.,151 U.S. 135(1894)

14 S.Ct. 295

VOORHEESv. JOHN T. NOYE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF

NEBRASKA.

No. 734.

Submitted December 19, 1893.

Decided January 3, 1894.

A final decree was entered January 7, 1891, and appeal allowed the same day. A motion for rehearing was made January 10, 1891, which was argued February 3, 1892, and denied February 17, 1892. An appeal bond was given April 15, 1892, conditioned for the prosecution of the appeal taken January 7, 1891, and the record was filed here April 19, 1892.Held, that, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891,26 Stat. 826c. 517, the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of an appeal, and, upon the denial of the petition for a rehearing, a new appeal should have been taken to that court for the Eighth Circuit.Page 136

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. C.S. Montgomeryfor appellant.Mr. Alfred Hazlettfor appellee.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

The decree in this cause was entered on January 7, 1891, at the November term, 1890, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, and at its foot the court minuted: "Lucas A. Voorhees prays an appeal, which is allowed;" and also, "L.A. Voorhees has leave to file motion for rehearing Saturday." On the tenth of January, which was the Saturday following, the application of L.A. Voorhees for rehearing was filed.

It appears of record that on January 9, 1892, at the November, 1891, term of the court, "this cause coming on to be heard this day on the motion for rehearing filed herein, was argued and submitted to the court by solicitors for the respective parties; whereupon the court takes the same under consideration." On February 3, 1892, at the January term, 1892, the record shows that the motion for rehearing of the cause "on its merits was reargued and submitted to the court by solicitors for the respective parties," and taken under advisement.

February 17, 1892, at the same January term, the motion for rehearing was denied, the court holding that "it is now too late to sustain said motion or to interfere with the decree." March 23, 1892, the refusal of certain defendants to join in an appeal was filed, which refusal was dated January 17, 1891. April 15, 1892, an appeal bond was given by Lucas A. Voorhees, conditioned for the prosecution of the appeal allowed January 7, 1891, approved by the court and filed April 18, 1892. The record was filed in this court, April 19, 1892, certified by the clerk of the Circuit Court, April 5, 1892. The bond is certified to by the clerk of the Circuit Court under date, April 21, 1892.

The jurisdiction of the court below depended solely upon the diverse citizenship of the parties, and by the act of March 3, 1891,26 Stat. 826, c. 517, the jurisdiction of this court inPage 137such cases was taken away, although preserved by the joint resolution of March 3, 1891,26 Stat. 1115, as to pending cases and cases wherein the appeal should be taken before July 1, 1891. The appeal was allowed January 7, 1891, but the decree did not take final effect as of that date for the purposes of an appeal, nor until February 17, 1892, because the application for rehearing was entertained by the court, filed within the time granted for that purpose, and not disposed of until then.AspenMining c. Co. v.Billings,150 U.S. 31.

The appeal bond was not given until April 15, 1892, but the record was filed in this court April 19, 1892, which was one of the days of the October term, 1891, of this court. Notwithstanding this, however, and without considering the question as to whether this appeal was properly prosecuted, in respect of parties, withinHardeev.Wilson,146 U.S. 179, we are of opinion that as the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and this court had not, long after July 1, 1891, the taking of a new appeal became necessary upon the denial of the rehearing, and this could only be to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.Cincinnati Safe Lock Co. v.Grand Rapids DepositCo.,146 U.S. 54.Appeal dismissed.