The Bayonne

Citations

• 159 U.S. 687
• 16 S. Ct. 185
• 40 L. Ed. 306
• 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2339

Syllabus

<p>The District Court of tne United States for the Southern District of New York has monthly terms. The decree in this case was entered December 21, and an appeal allowed December 31,1892. On the 17th of the following January, during a new term of the court, the assignment of errors was directed to be filed nunc pro tunc as of December 31, 1892. Held, that if that assignment could be treated as a certificate, it came too laté, and, as there was nothing in the record prior to the expiration of the December term, to indicate any attempt or intention to file a certificate during that term, and there was no omission to enter anything which had actually been done at that term, the case did not come within the rule that permits an amendment of the record nunc pro tunc.</p> <p>The filing of an assignment of errors in a Circuit Court, by order of that court and the taking a general appeal and its allowance by that court, is not a compliance with the statutory provision in the judiciary act of March 3, 1891,. c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, and is not equivalent to the certificate required by that act.</p> <p>In so deciding the court must not be understood as intim'ating any opinion upon the question whether jurisdictional questions existed, within the meaning of § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891.</p> <p>In re Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co., 156 U. S. 322, and Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, distinguished from this case.</p>