TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harrington v. Holler

HARRINGTON & Another v. HOLLER

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

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 5, 1884
Judges
Waite
Citations
111 U.S. 7964 S. Ct. 69728 L. Ed. 6021884 U.S. LEXIS 1842
Syllabus
Practice. . A decision of the Stípreme Court of a Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court because of failure tp 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.
Summary
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE WASHINGTON TERRITORY. This came up on motion to dismiss the writ of error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Waite

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. 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 alio wane 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 30 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11890: 21891: 31896: 11897: 11899: 11900: 11907: 21909: 11910: 11911: 21913: 31914: 21923: 11924: 11926: 11927: 11934: 31943: 218882026peak 1891 · 3

Most recent

  1. Basora v. Padilla61 P.R. 410 (1943)
  2. Basora v. Padilla61 P.R. Dec. 423 (1943)
  3. Negrón v. Mudafor47 P.R. 195 (1934)
  4. Negrón v. Mudafor47 P.R. Dec. 207 (1934)
  5. Archerd v. Oregon290 U.S. 604 (1934)
  6. Melchior-Armstrong-Dessau Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Banco Comercial De Puerto Rico23 F.2d 91 (1st Cir. 1927)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
R.R. Co. v. Wiswall, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 507 (1875) 70
Ex Parte Newman, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 152 (1872) 65

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list