United States v. Ayres
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the first opinion of the court in the matter.
“We shall not now undertake to give a construction of the several provisions of this section, which are new and anomalous, but shall leave that until cases of actual inconsistency or conflict may arise between the two modes of proceeding. So far as the present question is concerned, there is no great difficulty. The act expressly provides that the motion for a new trial may be made in the court below while the appeal from the judgment there is pending in this court. So far the section is clear; and, although it may be regarded as giving to the government a considerable advantage in the litigation, the power to give it by Congress, cannot, we suppose, be doubted.”
The motion to dismiss was accordingly denied.
Soon after this action by this court, the Court of Claims granted the new trial which the government had asked for, and stayed payment of the judgment until the final hearing of the cause or the further hearing of the court.
Mr. Hughes now came forward again, asking, for the claimant, to have the appeal dismissed, the ground now assigned being that a new trial had been actually granted *610 Mr. Hale, opposing this motion in the.form asked, presented on the other hand, for the government, a motion asking that the record in the cause pending here might be remitted to the court below for further proceedings in that court, reserving all questions that might arise in the judgment brought up by the appeal, or for such other order as the court might deem proper.
And now, on this new state of things, after argument at the bar and advisement, Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
The case stands thus: the petitioner has obtained a judgment in the court below against the government, from which an appeal has been taken, and is pending in this court. A new trial has since been granted by the court below, and the payment of the judgment stayed. The act of Congress furnishes no solution to this anomaly.
¥e are of opinion the granting of the motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the court has granted a new trial in the cause under the act of Congress, will furnish the best solution of the embarrassments in which the parties find themselves involved. It is quite apparent that the counsel for the government is desirous to retain the appeal notwithstanding the order for a new trial, under an impression that for some unknown or unanticipated occurrence in the proceedings in the court below, the new trial might fall through, and never take place; and, for the like reason, the counsel for the petitioner desires to have the appeal terminated, so as not to be available to his adversary. But, it is quite clear, that the order granting the new trial has the effect of vacating the former judgment, and to render it null and void, and the parties are left in the same situation as if no trial had ever taken place in the cause. This is the legal effect of the new trial by a court competent to grant it. There is no reason, therefore, for continuing any longer the case on our docket. The motion to dismiss the appeal is Granted.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 16 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(explaining that a vacated order is “null and void, and the parties are left in the same situation as if no trial had ever taken place”)
-
(effect of order granting new trial is to permit defendant to raise any matter that may normally be raised prior to trial)
-
("under the clean slate doctrine, when a defendant's conviction is reversed for trial error, the conviction and sentence imposed pursuant to the conviction are nullified")
-
(vacatur leaves the parties “in the same situation as if no trial had ever taken place” even where the conviction was vacated because the trial court granted the government’s motion for a new trial)
-
("[T]he court vacated the district court’s final judgment.")
Cited by 39 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court4
- U.S. Courts of Appeals19
- Federal District Courts5
- Federal Specialty Courts4
- State Highest Courts4
- State Appellate Courts3
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.