Scarborough v. Pargoud
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The final decree in this case was rendered on the 13th of July, 1878, and while the writ of error was allowed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and a bond approved and citation signed on the 5th of July, 1880, the writ of error was not actually issued until the 14th, and the copy was not lodged in the clerk’s office until the 16th of that month.
No judgment or decree of a State court can be reviewed in this court unless the writ of error is brought within two years after the entry of the judgment. Rev. Stats. § 1008-;
*568 Cummings v. Jones, 104 U. S. 419 . In Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204 , it was decided,.Chief Justice Taney speaking for the court, that “ the writ of error is not brought, in the legal meaning of the term, until it is filed in the court -which rendered the judgment. It is the filing of the writ that removes the record from the inferior to the appellate court, and the period of limitation prescribed by the act of Congress must be calculated accordingly. 5 This case is cited with approval in Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355 .
It follows that the writ of -error in this .case was not Brought within the time limited by law, and we have consequently no jurisdiction. For that reason The writ is dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
("[T]he writ of error in this case was not brought within the time limited by law, and we have consequently no jurisdiction")
Cited by 24 cases
View all citing references →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.