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.

Caillot Vs. Deetken

Caillot vs Deetken

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-26-1885
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/85160

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
113 U.S. 215
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Caillot

Respondent

Deetken

Excerpt

caillot v. deetken - 113 u.s. 215 (1885) u.s. supreme court caillot v. deetken, 113 u.s. 215 (1885) caillot v. deetken submitted january 12, 1885 decided january 26, 1885 113 u.s. 215 i n error to the circuit court of the united states for the district of california syllabus this court can acquire no jurisdiction under a writ of error where the return to it is made by filing the transcript of the record here after the expiration of the term of this court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court. the facts are stated in the opinion of the court. page 113 u. s. 216 mr. justice miller delivered the opinion of the court. it has been repeatedly decided by this court that where no return has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court, this court has acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and, the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must therefore be dismissed. villabolos v. united states, 6 how. 81; castro v. united states, 3 wall. 46; mussina v. cavazos, 6 wall. 358; murdock v. memphis, 20 wall. 624. in the case before us, the writ of error was filed in the circuit court in which the record was march 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this court november 28, 1884. two full terms of the court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the circuit court and its return with the transcript into this court. it must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Full Judgment

Caillot v. Deetken - 113 U.S. 215 (1885)
U.S. Supreme Court Caillot v. Deetken, 113 U.S. 215 (1885)

Caillot v. Deetken

Submitted January 12, 1885

Decided January 26, 1885

113 U.S. 215

I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLLABUS

This Court can acquire no jurisdiction under a writ of error where the return to it is made by filing the transcript of the record here after the expiration of the term of this Court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 113 U. S. 216

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

It has been repeatedly decided by this Court that where no return has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the circuit court, this Court has acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and, the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must therefore be dismissed. Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 624.

In the case before us, the writ of error was filed in the circuit court in which the record was March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this Court November 28, 1884. Two full terms of the Court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the circuit court and its return with the transcript into this Court.

It must therefore be

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial