Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Scarborough Vs. Pargoud

Scarborough vs Pargoud

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-07-1883
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84501

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
108 U.S. 567
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Scarborough

Respondent

Pargoud

Excerpt

scarborough v. pargoud - 108 u.s. 567 (1883) u.s. supreme court scarborough v. pargoud, 108 u.s. 567 (1883) scarborough v. pargoud decided may 7, 1883 108 u.s. 567 i n error to the supreme court of the state of louisiana syllabus no judgment or decree of a state court can be reviewed in this court unless the writ of error is filed in the court which rendered the judgment within two years from the entry of the judgment. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. the final decree in this case was rendered on the 13th of july, 1878, and while the writ of error was allowed by the chief justice of the supreme court of louisiana, and a bond approved and citation signed on the 5th of july, 1880, the writ of error was not actually issued until the 14th, and the copy was not lodged in the clerk's office until the 16th, of that month. no judgment or decree of a state court can be reviewed in this court unless the writ of error is brought within two years after the entry of the judgment. rev.stat. § 1008; page 108 u. s. 568 cummings v. jones, 104 u. s. 419 . in brooks v. norris, 11 how. 204, it was decided, chief justice taney, speaking for the court, that "the writ of error is not brought, in the legal meaning of the term, until it is filed in the court which rendered the judgment. it is the filing of the writ that removes the record from the inferior to the appellate court, and the period of limitation prescribed by the act of congress must be calculated accordingly." this case is cited with approval in mussina v. cavazos, 6 wall. 355. it follows that the writ of error in this case was not brought within the time limited by law, and we have consequently no jurisdiction. for that reason, the writ is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Scarborough v. Pargoud - 108 U.S. 567 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U.S. 567 (1883)

Scarborough v. Pargoud

Decided May 7, 1883

108 U.S. 567

I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

SYLLABUS

No judgment or decree of a state court can be reviewed in this Court unless the writ of error is filed in the court which rendered the judgment within two years from the entry of the judgment.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The final decree in this case was rendered on the 13th of July, 1878, and while the writ of error was allowed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and a bond approved and citation signed on the 5th of July, 1880, the writ of error was not actually issued until the 14th, and the copy was not lodged in the clerk's office until the 16th, of that month.

No judgment or decree of a state court can be reviewed in this Court unless the writ of error is brought within two years after the entry of the judgment. Rev.Stat. § 1008;

Page 108 U. S. 568

Cummings v. Jones, 104 U. S. 419 . In Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 204, it was decided, Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the Court, that

"The writ of error is not brought, in the legal meaning of the term, until it is filed in the court which rendered the judgment. It is the filing of the writ that removes the record from the inferior to the appellate court, and the period of limitation prescribed by the act of congress must be calculated accordingly."

This case is cited with approval in Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355.

It follows that the writ of error in this case was not brought within the time limited by law, and we have consequently no jurisdiction. For that reason,

The writ is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial