Waskey

Waskey v. Hammer

Good Law
102 C.C.A. 629·179 F. 273·3 Alaska Fed. 492·1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4632
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 26, 1910Nos. 1,609, 1,595California966 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The mandate of this court was issued to the District Court for Alaska in the first of the above-entitled cases on June 18, 1909, and in the second case on October 11, 1909. The petitioners now ask this court to recall both mandates, on the ground that in each case the Supreme Court on April 6, 1910, issued its writ of certiorari directing this court to certify its record to that court for its action thereon.

It is a conclusive answer to the petition in the first case to point to the fact that the term at which our mandate issued has long since expired. This court has no power to en *494 tertain a motion to recall its mandate after the expiration of the term at which its judgment was rendered and its mandate was issued. In Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410 , 26 L.Ed. 797 , the court declared it to be a rule well established : “That after the term has ended all final judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond its control, unless steps be taken during that term, by motion or otherwise, to set aside, modify, or correct them.”

And the court added: “So strongly has this principle been upheld by this court that, while realizing that there is no court which can review its decisions,…

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.