Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta del Valle v. Harrison 93 U.S. 233

← Cases

del Valle v. Harrison

93 U.S. 233 Court SCOTUS English

Delivered by Waite C.J.

Contents

Majority — Waite C.J.

p. 233
Yznaga del Valle v. Harrison et al.

Syllabus

As the Code of Practice of Louisiana provides that all definitive or final judgments must be signed by the judge rendering them, this court, under sect. 691 of the Revised Statutes, as_amended by the act of Eeb. 16, 1875 ( 18 Stat. 316 ), cannot, where the matter in dispute does not exceed the sum or value of $5,000, exclusive of costs, review the judgment of a circuit court of the United States sitting m that State, sighed subsequently to May 1, 1875.
IiIotion to" dismiss a wrjt of error to the Circuit Court of- the Unitéd States for .the District of Louisiana.
p. 234
Mr. Edward Janin for the defendants in error, in support of the motion.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. Q. W. Eornor for the plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case is for less than $5,000, and was given April 9, 1875. A motion for new trial, entered and filed April 13, was overruled, after argument, May 8. The judgment as given was signed by the judge May 10, 1875.

A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is now made, because the matter in dispute is less than $5,000. This writ of error was issued under sect. 691 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of Feb. 16, 1875 ( 18 Stat. 316 ), which provides for the re-examination in this court of all final judgments of the circuit courts rendered previous to May 1, 1875, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $2,000, and of such as were rendered after that date where it exceeds $5,000. The only question presented by this motion is whether the judgment of the Circuit Court was “rendered” before or after May 1, 1875. If before, we have jurisdiction; if after, we have not.

By the Code of Practice of Louisiana, “ the judge must sign all definitive or final judgments rendered by him; but he shall not do so until three judicial days have elapsed, to be computed from the day when such judgments were given.” Art. 545, Code 1870; art. 546 of.former Code. This, by the operation of sect.. 914 of the Revised Statutes (which is a reproduction of sect. 6 of “ An Act to further the administration of justice,” passed June 1, 1872, 17 Stat. 197 ), is now by law a rule of practice for the courts.of the United States within that State; and it seems, that, as early as 1828, the District Court of the United States in Louisiana had adopted it as-a rule of that court. Such being the case, this court held, in Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Wilson's Heirs, 8 Pet. 303 , decided in 1834, that “ the judgment, without the signature of the judge, cannot be enforced. It is not a final judgment on which a writ of error may issue for its reversal. Without the

p. 235
action of the judge, tbe plaintiffs can take no step. . . . They can neither issue execution on the judgment, nor reverse tbe proceedings by writ of error.” Tbis is in accordance with tbe settled practice in Louisiana, and is decisive of tbis case. Stark v. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 345 ; Sprigg v. Wells, 5 Mart. n. s. 105; Fx parte Nickolass, 4 Rob. 53 ; Mech. & Tr. Bank N. O. v. Walter, 7 id. 451; Succession of Arbridge, 1 La. Ann. 207 ; McWillie v. Perkins, 20 id. 169. As only final judgments can be re-examined here upon writs of error, tbe judgment to be “rendered,” wbicb tbe statute refers to, must be tbe final judgment. That judgment is not rendered in Louisiana until it is signed by tbe judge. In other States, tbe rule in this respect may be different; and in Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 295 , we said, “ The time to be taken as when tbe judgment or decree may be said to be rendered or passed may admit of some latitude, and may depend somewhat upon the usage and practice of tbe particular court.” But this being a judgment in Louisiana, and not having been signed until after May 1, was not rendered, according to tbe practice in that State, before that date; and consequently tbe writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases cited