Langstedt

Tyee Consolidated Mining Co. v. Langstedt

Good Law
121 F. 709·2 Alaska Fed. 53·58 C.C.A. 129·1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4661
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 2, 1903No. 875California1,319 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that no assignment of errors was filed with the clerk of the court below at the time of filing the petition for the writ. The motion is made upon the condition of the record as it appears, showing the file marks of the clerk of the court at Juneau, Alaska. From these indorsements of the clerk it appears that the petition for the writ was filed on June 23, 1902; that the writ was issued on that day, and was filed on July 10, 1902; and that on the same day the assignment of errors was filed. The case of Frame v. Port *56 land, etc.,' Co., 47 C.C.A. 664 , 108 F. 750 , is cited in support of the motion. In that case the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held it indispensable, under rule 11 ( 32 C.C.A. cxlvi ), that the assignment of errors be filed before the issuance of the writ, to the end that the judge to whom application is made for the writ may be informed of the alleged errors upon which the petitioner relies, in order to decide whether the prayer of the petition shall be granted, and that the opposing counsel, as well as the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.