Blitz v. Brown
Supreme Court of the United States
In this case — a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the. District of Columbia — no authenticated transcript of the record had been filed. That which purported to be a transcript contained only a blank form of a certificate of authentication, without the seal o,f the eoúrt below or the signature of its clerk.
Read the full summary
In this case — a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the. District of Columbia — no authenticated transcript of the record had been filed. That which purported to be a transcript contained only a blank form of a certificate of authentication, without the seal o,f the eoúrt below or the signature of its clerk. Two motions were now accordingly made; the first by Mr. Carlisle-, for the defendant in error, to dismiss, the second, by Mr. Bradley, in behalf of the plaintiff in erroT, for leave to withdraw the paper from the fijes, in order that the blank certificate might be duly signed and…
1Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE
delivered the opinion of the. court.
The filing of such a paper, as has been filed in this case, is not tLe filing of the transcript at the next term after the issuing of the writ of error, without which we can have no jurisdiction of the case. The motion to dismiss must be allowed.
• So much of the motion made in behalf of the plaintiff in error as asks' leave to withdiaw the record is .granted; but the residue of' the motion mustJbe denied. The case can be brought here only by a new writ of error.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Idaho & Oregon Land Improvement Co. v. BradburySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Nashua & Lowell R. v. Boston & Lowell R.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Dobbs v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- State v. MitchellSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
- Buehl v. American Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.