Skip to content


United States Vs. Jones - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number149 U.S. 262
AppellantUnited States
RespondentJones
Excerpt:
united states v. jones - 149 u.s. 262 (1893) u.s. supreme court united states v. jones, 149 u.s. 262 (1893) united states v. jones no. 262 submitted april 24, 1893 decided may 1, 1893. 149 u.s. 262 error to the circuit court of the united states for the western district of louisiana syllabus a bill of exceptions signed after the final adjournment of the court for the term, without an order extending the time for its presentation, or the consent of parties thereto, or a standing role authorizing it to be done, is improvidently allowed, and when the errors assigned arise upon the bill, the judgment will be affirmed. the case is stated in the opinion. the chief justice: judgment was rendered in this case july.....
Judgment:
United States v. Jones - 149 U.S. 262 (1893)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Jones, 149 U.S. 262 (1893)

United States v. Jones

No. 262

Submitted April 24, 1893

Decided May 1, 1893.

149 U.S. 262

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Syllabus

A bill of exceptions signed after the final adjournment of the court for the term, without an order extending the time for its presentation, or the consent of parties thereto, or a standing role authorizing it to be done, is improvidently allowed, and when the errors assigned arise upon the bill, the judgment will be affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Judgment was rendered in this case July 18, the writ of error sued out and allowed July 23, and the court adjourned for the term July 30, 1889. So far as

Page 149 U. S. 263

disclosed by the record, the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge, or signed by him, until October 7, 1889, and no order was entered extending the time for its presentation, nor was there any consent of parties thereto, nor any standing rule of court which authorized such approval. The bill of exceptions was therefore improvidently allowed. Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249 ; Jones v. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co., 131 U.S. Append. cl; Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293 . As the errors assigned arise upon the bill of exceptions, we are compelled to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //