Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Small v. Northern Pacific Railroad 134 U.S. 514

← Cases

Small v. Northern Pacific Railroad

134 U.S. 514 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1890-03-31 Docket No. 226 English

Delivered by Fullee C.J.

Contents

Majority — Fullee C.J.

p. 514
SMALL v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

Syllabus

APPEAL FEOM THE CIECUIT OOUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE DISTEICT OF’ MINNESOTA.
No. 226.
Submitted March 21, 1890.
Decided March 31, 1890.
When the record is not filed in this court at the term succeeding the allowance of an appeal, the appeal ceases to have any operation or effect, and the case stands as if it had never been allowed. •
The case is Stated in the opinion.
Mr. John G. Woolley for appellant.
Mr. W. P. Glough, Mr. A. H. Garlcúnd and Mr. H. J. May for appellee.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Small filed his bill in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, of the State of Minnesota, whence the cause was subsequently removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, and, upon hearing, resulted on the 24th day of June, 1884, in a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill, and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant for its costs to be taxed; On the 25th day of June, 1884, the complainant' prayed an appeal to this court, which was granted. On the 21st day of May, 1886, complainant filed an

p. 515
appeal.bond and a citation was issued, returnable at the October term, 1886, dated April 30, 1886. The record herein was filed October 19, 1886. /The only appeal which from the record before us appears to have been prayed and allowed was that of the 25th day of June, 1881.

But, as we have said many times before,. inasmuch as the record was not filed at the term succeeding the allowance of the appeal, that appeal ceased to have any operation or effect,- and the case stood as if it had never been allowed. There was no allowance of an appeal after that, and when the record was filed on the 19th day of October, 1886, this was not done in pursuance of an appeal still in force,- nor could an appeal ■hen have -been allowed, as two years had expired from the ate of the. final decree.'' This appeal was • not “ taken ” as -ovided, and wé are, therefore, compelled to dismiss it. Credit Company v. Arkansas Centra l Railway, 128 U. S. 258 ; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104 ; Evans v. State National B ank, ante, 330.

■Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases cited