Washington Home for Incurables v. American Security & Trust Co.

Washington Home for Incurables v. American Security and Trust Company; Vermillion v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

Wash. Home for Incurables v. Am. Sec. & Trust Co., 224 U.S. 486 (1912)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: April 29, 1912
Judges: Holmes
Citations: 224 U.S. 48632 S. Ct. 55456 L. Ed. 8541912 U.S. LEXIS 2316

Cited by 9

Headnotes

Section 299 of the Judicial Code of March 3,1911, 36 Stat. 1087, c 231, saving suits pending on appeal, does not give the right of appeal from judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in cases covered by the statutes repealed .by the Judicial Code and in which the cause of action accrued prior to January 1, 1912, but which were not decided by the Court of Appeals until after that date. Appeal from 40 Washington Law Reporter, 146, denied.

Summary

APPLICATIONS POE THE ALLOWANCE OP AN APPEAL PEOM THE COUET OP APPEALS OP THE DISTBICT OP COLUMBIA, AND POE A WEIT OP EEEOE TO THE SAME. The facts, which involve the construction of the provisions of the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, in regard to appeals to this court from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion. The saving clause of the Judicial Code, § 299, clearly preserves the right of appeal in this case. Its language would have to be wrested from its evident meaning to bar the appeal. Giving to the language of § 299 the consideration warranted by the familiar canons of construction of statutes will show that the intention, and the action of Congress, contemplated the continuance of the right of appeal in this cause. For the canons of construction of statutes, or decisions respecting them, see summary, 1 Fed. Stat., Ann., pp. VIII to CXXX, on statutes and statutory construction. In the light of reason an examination of the Judicial Code as affected by § 299 shows that it cannot bar appeals covered by the saving clause as in this case. If, as may be claimed, the intention of Congress was simply to preserve the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over writs of error and appeals in cases actually pending on the first day of January, 1912, in the Supreme Court of the United States itself, and not in any appellate or other court below, Congress could and would have said so in a very few words. If Congress meant to preserve only appeals pending in the Supreme Court it should and would have said so, as in former acts, in explicit terms. For other instances, see Act of March 3,1873,17 Stat. 485, c. 223; Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1115; Act of January 20, 1897, 29 Stat. 492. Section 299 is unnecessary for any other purpose than that suggested in this case. In cutting off a privilege of appeal enjoyed by the National Capital for more than a century, Congress gave days of grace at least as to pending cases.

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

Opinion — Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

These are applications for the allowance of an appeal and writ of error, respectively. The cases come before the court under the same circumstances as the application for a writ of error just decided.

American Security & Trust Co.

v. District of Columbia, post, p. 491.

The first named, is a bill in equity that was pending in the Court of Appeals on January 1, 1912, and decided on March 4, 1912. The matter in dispute in both, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars. The law before the enactment of the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087 , allowed a writ of error or appeal in such cases, act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, § 8, 27 Stat. 434 , 436, and the applicants contend that the appeal and writ of error are rights saved by § 29.9 of the Code. That section is as follows: “The repeal of existing laws, or the amendments thereof, embraced in this Act, shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit .or proceeding, including those pending on writ of error, appeal, certificate, or writ of certiorari, in any appellate court referred to or included within, the provisions of this Act, pending at the time of the taking effect of this Act, but all such suits and proceedings, and suits and proceedings for causes arising or acts done prior tó such date, may be commenced and prosecuted within *490 the same time, and with the same effect, as if said repeal or amendments had not been made.” This act took effect when this suit was pending in the Court of Appeals, on January 1, 1912.

The purpose of the act in the matter of appeals from the Court of Appeals of the District was to make a substantial change and to do away with them except in classes of cases of which this is not one. There seems to be little if any more reason for preserving a further appeal in cases then before the Court of Appeals than there is in those in which no writ had heen sued out, but the cause of action had accrued before January 1, 1912, which is nothing at all. It must appear clearly, therefore, that this case is saved or it will fall under the general rule. We find no clear expression of such intent. The general provision that the repeal shall not affect any right or suit, is ambiguous and is qualified and explained by the words ‘including those pending on appeal/ etc., which suggest that but for them appeals already taken would havé fallen.

Baltimore & Potomac R. R. Co.

v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398 . If express words were thought necessary to save pending appeals, a fortiori such words were needed to save appeals not yet taken, and no such words were used. The first part of the section, declaring what shall not happen, is elucidated by the antithetical statement, in the last part, of what shall take place. We gather from that that all suits upon causes of action that arose before January 1 stand alike. We cannot suppose that a suit not yet begun can be taken to this court on the ground that a sum of more than $5,000 is involved, and we are of opinion that the applicant makes no better case. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the act saves jurisdiction when an appeal has been taken, but does not save an appeal for all suits :in causes of action accrued before this year.

Leave to appeal and writ of error denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Obermeier186 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1951)
Wells v. Russellville Anthracite Coal Mining Co.206 F. 528 (E.D. Ark. 1913)
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Chappell206 F. 688 (W.D. Okla. 1913)
Cady v. Barnes208 F. 359 (N.D. Ohio 1913)
Texas Gum Co. v. Autosales Gum & Chocolate Co.219 F. 165 (5th Cir. 1915)
Taylor v. Midland Valley R.197 F. 323 (E.D. Okla. 1912)

Most recent

People of Illinois ex rel. Hartigan v. Cheney726 F. Supp. 219 (C.D. Ill. 1989)
United States v. Obermeier186 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1951)
Woolworth Co. v. United States13 Ct. Cust. 176 (C.C.P.A. 1925)
Wells Fargo & Co. Express v. Hale175 S.W. 469 (Tex. App. 1915)
Texas Gum Co. v. Autosales Gum & Chocolate Co.219 F. 165 (5th Cir. 1915)
Wells v. Russellville Anthracite Coal Mining Co.206 F. 528 (E.D. Ark. 1913)

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	R.R. Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398 (1879)	136

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list