Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

from a decree declaring void an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and referring the cause to a master to take an account of the property. (Pulliman v. Christian, 6 How. 209.) A decree referring the case to a master to take an account from evidence and the examination of the parcies, and to make allowances affecting the rights of parties, or to partition property and report the results, is not a final decree. (Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 2 Black, 539; Perkins v. Fourniquet, 6 How. 206; Farrelly v. Woodfolk, 19 How. 288: Humiston v. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106; Green v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518.) A decree directing the payment of money into court, or the delivery of property to a receiver or trustee for the purpose of reserving it or keeping it within the control of the court until the ights of the parties can be determined, is interlocutory. (Forgay v onrad, 6 How. 201.) A decree against an executor awarding a certain um to a residuary legatee, and directing that sums thereafter collected rom debts shall be paid in for distribution, is not final, and no appeal ies therefrom. (Young v. Smith, 15 Peters, 287.) No appeal lies from a ecree for a sale of property to enforce a lien without ascertaining the property nor the amount of debt, for the decree is not final. (Railroad Company v. Swasey, 23 Wall. 405.) Where a decree dissolves an injunction ithout dismissing the bill, it is not a final decree (McCollum v. Eager, 2 How. 61; Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283); and it is not the subject of n appeal. (Hiriart v. Ballou, 9 Peters, 156.) A decree retaining a bill rought to enjoin a judgment, and directing a new trial and continuing e injunction until the verdict of the jury is made known, is not a final ecree. (Lea v. Kelly, 15 Peters, 213.) A person intervening simply for e purpose of appealing from a decree cannot object to orders made prior o the decree, where he took no appeal from them. (Sage v. Central Railad Co., 99 U. S. 334.) No opposition can be heard by a party who does ot appeal (Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514); nor can excepons taken to a master's report by such party be considered. (Rubber Co. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 786; S. C., 2 Fish. 499; S. C., 2 Cliff. 351.) The excepon must be filed in the circuit court or the objection cannot be consided. (Brockett v. Brockett, 8 How. 681; West v. Smith, 8 How. 402; insman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289; McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507; ount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514.) An objection to the jurisdicon of the circuit court on the ground of the citizenship of the defendits must be limited to those only who appealed. (Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 ow. 163.) Where an objection that no replication has been filed to the swer is not taken in the circuit court, it will be deemed to be waived. lements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299; Fritz v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198.) Excepons are not waived by suing out a writ of error before the signature of e judge is obtained where they were reserved at the trial. (Hunnicutt Peyton, 102 U. S. 333.) The action of the circuit court upon a motion a new trial on a verdict upon issues sent to a court of law cannot considered when the evidence is not reported with the verdict. att v. Starke, 101 U. S. 247.) If no exception is taken, neither e charge of the court nor the order granting or refusing a new trial is ersible. (Railroad Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120.) An objection not taken the court below cannot be considered. (Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. .) No notice can be taken of testimony permitted to be given orally in circuit court unless it or its substance is stated in writing and made a t of the record. (Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1; Conn, v. Penn., 5 eat. 424.) Where testimony objected to is ruled out it must be sent up h the record in order to have the ruling considered. (Blease v. Gargton, 92 U. S. 1.) Where the parties have consented to a decree, an ection to the misjoinder of parties complainant cannot be reviewed. vingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. 546.) In an appeal, an allowance of ch is obtained as between himself and other parties by a party, he not ask for any modification of the decree to the prejudice of parties as whom he procured an order of severance, thus making them no parties

[ocr errors]

to the appeal. (Terry v. Abraham, 93 U. S. 38.) When the circuit court has no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will reverse the decree and remit the case with directions to dismiss the proceedings (Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235); and after such reversal it can take no further jurisdiction of the cause; it cannot remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings or retain it for further proceedings; and it can take jurisdiction only so far as it regards the proceedings had before the circuit court, and those proceedings must be reversed or annulled. (U. S. v. Nourse, 6 Peters, 470.) Where the jurisdiction of the circuit court is not shown by the bill, the case may be remanded with leave to amend. (Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81.) Where a bill is dismissed on the merits in a case where the circuit court had no jurisdiction, the decree will be reversed and the case dismissed without prejudice. (Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280.) When a bill should have been dismissed without prejudice, but was dismissed absolutely, the decree will be reversed (Kendig v. Dean, 97 U. S. 423; Van Norden v. Morton, 99 U. S. 378; Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81; Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280); as when a bill is so dismissed for a misjoinder of parties complainant, the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to allow an amendment by the complainants, or, in case of failure to do this in a reasonable time, to dismiss the bill without prejudice. (House v. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42.) A decree of a circuit court for dismissing a bill for want of jurisdiction will be reversed and costs awarded against the defendant where costs were improperly awarded in his favor. (Hornthall v. Collector, 9 Wall. 960.) A refusal to allow the complainant to make an amendment of a bill after a demurrer thereto has been sustained cannot be reviewed unless the record sets forth what the amendment is. (Nat. Bank v. Carpenter, 107 U. S. 667.) A bill of review and the answer thereto cannot be considered unless an order is made upon a petition in the nature of the bill and the answer. (O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150.) A refusal to direct a receiver to restore the property in his custody to the mortgagor, who offers to pay all of the debt that is due, may be revised when the entire case is brought up on an appeal from a final decree. (Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510.) The court will not consider errors assigned by the appellee (Clarke v. Killian, 106 U. S. 766); and unless an appellee brings a cross-appeal he cannot take advantage of an error committed against him. (Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191; Mail Co. v. Flanders, 12 Wall. 130.) Cress-appeals must be prosecuted like any other appeals. (Winslow v. Wilcox, 12 Fed. Rep. 352, note.) Where no allowance of an appeal is shown by the record, the case will be dismissed. (Pierce v. Cox, 9 Wall, 786.) Where no harm has resulted to the appellant from an immaterial departure from technical rules, a decree will not be reversed. (Allis v. Insurance Co., 97 U. S. 144.) Where a bill filed to procure the distribution of the property of a testator under a will leaving a legacy to an heir at law does not show the domicil of the testator from the time the will was executed till his decease, the decree will be reversed. (Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Peters. 483.) Where proper parties are wanting, the decree may be reversed and the case remanded, with leave to make proper parties (Lewis v. Darling, 16 How, 1); but a case will not be remanded with leave to take further evidence, although new evidence is alleged to be found. (United States v. Knight, 1 Black, 488; Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139.) Where a rehearing is sought in order to bring in new evidence, the party should apply to the circuit court and have it request of the Supreme Court a return of the record for further proceedings in the case. (Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. 149.) Where mere technical objection, which may not have been made in the circuit court, is made to evidence, the cause will be remanded for further proceedings. (Drummond v. Magruder, 9 Cranch, 122.) The decree may appoint a new trustee in case a trustee dies after an appeal is taken. (Holden v. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 72.)

A decree of the Supreme Court upon an appeal from an interlocutory decree will be deemed conclusive on the second appeal, although rendered by a divided court. (Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. 413.) An appeal from a decree of a circuit court, according exactly with the mandate upon a prior appeal, will be dismissed. (Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U. S. 361.) Where a decree is rendered after the return of a verdict upon issues sent for a jury trial, an appeal therefrom cannot be decided according to the correctness of the rulings at the trial of such issues, but must be decided upon the whole case (Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U. S. 371); for the verdict upon issues so tried is deemed influential in the appellate court, but not conclusive. (Garseed v. Beall, 92 U. S. 684.) Only the pleadings and proofs below can be heard in appeals in equity; new evidence cannot be introluced and the pleadings cannot be amended (Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 39; Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 95 U. S. 1; vide Holmes v. Trout, 7 Peters, 71; Mitchell v. U. S.,9 Peters, 715); but where a State court renders judgment in a cause after an erroneous refusal to allow its removal, the quesion of jurisdiction may be raised on appeal. (Kern v. Huidekoper, 103, J. S. 485.) An appeal allowed by an act which is repealed while the case s pending will be dismissed. (Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506.) Where questions of fact only are involved in the appeal, the burden is on the apbellant to show error. (Mann v. Rock Island Bank, 11 Wall. 650.) The ppellant must file a statement of the points in the case or the case will ot be heard. (Faw v. Marsteller, 2 Cranch, 10; Peyton v. Brooke, 3 ranch, 92; Catherine v. U. S., 7 Cranch, 99.) Counsel will not be allowed o argue the case in behalf of parties not of record, but who consider hemselves interested. (Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Peters, 483.) Generally a eceiver will not be appointed pending an appeal. (Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ketchum, 95 U. S. 1.) After the judgment is entered no re-argument will e heard, unless some member of the court after concurring in the judgent doubts the correctness of his views and wishes further argument on he subject, when the court will inform the counsel of its desires and Decify the points to be re-argued. (Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 25.) While 1 appeal from a decree in order to obtain a larger sum is pending, the arty cannot execute the decree (Thornton v. Mahoney, 21 Cal. 569); and though he does enforce the decree, and receives the amount allowed m thereby, the appeal will not be dismissed. (Merriam v. Haas, 3 Wall. 7.) The party appealing should see that the record is properly prepared, id where useless papers are incorporated therein each party must pay s own costs, although the decree is reversed. (Railway Co. v. Stewart, U. S. 279.) The appellee is entitled to costs where the decree dismissing bill absolutely is reversed, with directions to dismiss without prejudice r want of jurisdiction. (Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81.) Where, after e dismissal of the first appeal a second does not act as a supersedeas, the 'cuit court may proceed to execute the original decree by a supplemental cree, from which an appeal will not lie. (Carr v. Hoxie, 13 Peters, 460.) here the appellee has a color of right to the dismissal of an appeal he ay unite with a motion therefor, one to affirm the decree. (Hinckley v. orton, 103 U. S. 764.)

Admiralty appeals. Where salvors united in the actions the ownare entitled to an appeal where the sum decreed exceeds five thousand llars, although the recovery was apportioned among the salvors. (The nnemara, 103 U. S. 754) In proceedings for condemnation upon captures public ships of war of the United States, the United States have a ht of appeal (The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1); and as the agents or officers the government are in one sense parties to proceedings to condemn a sel for a public offense, and damages may be decreed against them, y may appeal if the government does not. (The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1.) ses in admiralty appealed from district court to circuit court may be apled to the Supreme Court. (United States v. Nourse, 6 Peters, 476.) tere a circuit court affirms a decree of the district court entered against

two vessels on appeal of the owner of one only, it is uncertain whether this affirmance can be appealed from by the owners of both, although the one who appealed represented the entire interest of both parties. (The Mabey v. Cooper, 14 Wall. 204.) An appeal may be taken in admiralty, although the decree of the district court was affirmed pro forma by the circuit court, because of the private interest of the judge in the case (Oregon v. Rocoa, 18 How. 570); but an order of the circuit court merely affirming the decree of the district court is not a final decree to be appealed from. (Harris v. Wheeler, 8 Blatchf. 81; The Lucille, 19 Wall. 73.) If entertained by the circuit court before a final decree of the district court, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. (Mordecai v. Lindsey, 19 How. 199; Montgomery v. Anderson 21 How. 386.) An appeal will lie from a decree of a provisional court, made by statute a decree of the circuit court. (The Grapeshot, 7 Wall. 563; 9 Wall. 129.) A decree directing the appointment of a commissioner to assess the damages sustained by a libelant cannot be appealed from. (Chace v. Vasquez, 11 Wheat. 429.) Where a libel against a vessel as a pirate is dismissed with damages, which are not assessed, the decree is not final and cannot be appealed from, and until there is a final decree ascertaining the amount of damages no appeal can be taken. (The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502.) A decree directing that judgment be entered instead of declaring that a judgment is entered is final. (Craig v. The Hartford, 1 McAll. 91.) Where a decree directs that judgment be entered against the stipulators unless an appeal is taken, and an appeal is taken, there is no decree against them. Where the Supreme Court affirms the decree of the circuit court, the subsequent decision of the circuit court in refusing on motion to enter a decree against the stipulators can only be reviewed by an appeal. (Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall. 235.) Although a decree embodies a direction for the taxation of costs, it is final. (Craig v. The Hartford, 1 McAll. 91; vide Harris v. Wheeler, 8 Blatchf. 81.) A party allowed an appeal has the privilege of demanding of the appellate court its judgment on every question arising in the case.) Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150.) Opposition to a decree by a party who does not appeal cannot be heard when the decree is taken up on appeal by other parties, but his support thereof may be heard. (The Societe, 9 Cranch, 209; McDonough v. Dannery, 3 Dall. 188; The Stephen Morgan, 94 U. S. 599; The Reindeer, 2 Wall. 383; The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665; The Marriana Flora, 11 Wheat. 1.) The appellate court cannot consider exceptions to a libel not brought to the notice of the circuit court nor referred to in any way in the appeal, for they will be deemed to be conclusively waived by the respondent when he takes the appeal, and to consider them would be to review the action of the district court, which cannot be done. (The Vaughan, 14 Wall. 258.) Where the case is taken up to the Supreme Court, an objection for the first time that the libel is too general cannot be made (The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665); nor can an objection that another stipulation has been substituted in the place of the stipulation on which the vessel was taken out be there made, unless it was taken in the district court (The Lady Pike, 96 U. S. 461); nor can an objection to the non-joinder of parties libelant be there made available as an original objection (The Commander-in-Chief, 1 Wall. 43); nor can an objection to the correctness of a name given in the decree as that of the claimant against whom it is entered be there taken if the name is identical with that given in the stipuiation. (The Lady Pike, 96 U. S. 561.) Where no objection is made to the introduction of a deposition de bene esse in the lower court at the time of trial, it must be presumed that the requisites of law were either complied with or waived (The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9); and also where the record does not show any formal order or objection to the introduction of evidence as further proof in such court, there is a presumption that such action was done with the consent of the parties, and the irregularity is conclusively waived. (The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227.) Au order of the circuit court fining a party for contempt will not be brought up for review by an appeal. (New Orleans v. Steamboat Co., 20 Wall. 387; Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121.)

The question of jurisdiction may be brought up in the Supreme Court where the facts impeaching the jurisdiction are apparent on the face of the proceedings, although such question was not raised in the court below or expressly introduced by the pleadings (The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435); and a decree such as is shown by the record to be justly due the libelant may be entered by the Supreme Court, although entered on a ground not presented below (Dupont v. Vance, 19 How. 162); but a claim for damages in a libel for collision cannot be set up in the Supreme Court for the first time where it is not set up by the claimant in his answer (The Sapphire, 18 Wall. 51); and where such a claim is set up by the libelant or claimant, a decree for restitution and costs only is virtually a denial of damages, and the party must interpose an appeal or cross-appeal to sustain the claim, or he will be deemed to have waived it. (Canter v. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Peters, 307.) A case may be decided on its merits by the Supreme Court where no exception is filed to an answer for insufficiency in the district court. (The Commander-in-Chief, 1 Wall. 43.) An error apparent on the face of a commissioner's report is not remedied by the fact that no exception was taken to the report (Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch. 64; Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch, 313); and where no error is thus apparent, and no exception is taken to the report, which is duly confirmed by the circuit court, the matter is not open to review. (Jennings v. The Perseverance, 3 Dall. 336; The Virgin, 8 Peters, 538; The Vanderbilt, 6 Wall. 225,) Where the process of attachment, the return of the officers upon it, and a motion to quash the writ are not shown by the record, the court cannot consider that part of the decision which orders the goods atcached to be restored. (Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473.) A case prosecuted in the district court as an instance court, which as shown by the record is a case for a prize court, will be remanded for proceedings in the atter court (Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 Hcw. 498); and where a demurrer co a libel in the nature of an information sustained in the circuit court is overruled in the Supreme Court, the case will be remanded for further proceedings (U. S. v. The Neurea, 19 How. 92); and where the Supreme Court reverses a case for defects in such libel, the case may be remanded o the district court with directions to permit amendments if there is round for the belief that the offense for which the forfeiture is claimed as been committed (The Caroline v. U. S., 7 Cranch, 496; The Anne v. U. ., 7 Cranch, 570; The Edward, 1 Wheat. 261; The Divina Pastora, 4 Vheat. 52; The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 380; The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391; The 'almyra, 12 Wheat. 1); and a case will be so remanded with such direction here the libel of information charges that the seizure was made on ater, and the proof shows that it was made on land (The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 1); and so, also, where the Supreme Court reverses a case on account of he disagreement of the proof with the allegation. (The Merino, 9 Wheat. 91; The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1.) Where the case appears to have merits. ut a decree cannot be based on the pleadings or evidence on account of heir deficiency, the case will be so remanded with directions for amendent and further proofs. (The Mabry, 10 Wall. 419.) Where the exact nount to which the libelant is entitled cannot be determined by the upreme Court the case will be remanded to the circuit court to be referred a commissioner (Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Peters, 675); but where, from the stribution of facts on the record, the court can separate the damages and >portion them so as to accomplish true justice, it will so do, (Penhallow Doane, 3 Dall. 54.) The restitution of the property sold and not a payment will be directed by the Supreme Court. (Rachel v. U. S. 6 anch. 329.) Where damages are assessed in legal tenders, an appreciaon of the currency will not cause a reversal, for the decree was just en it was entered and cannot be molested. (The Vaughan, 14 Wall, 258.) here, after such decree and the taking effect of that act, the ascertainent of damages sustained was referred to a master, the action of e court as to exceptions to the master's report will not be reversed.

« AnteriorContinuar »