Pillsbury

Pillsbury v. Alaska Packers Ass'n

Bad Law
78 F.2d 587·1935 A.M.C. 1054·1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3797
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 1, 1935No. 7853California2,350 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mathews, J.

Appellee moves to dismiss appeals separately taken by appellants Pillsbury and Weidemann .from a final decree in admiralty. Grounds of the motion are: (1) That there was no petition for or allowance of either appeal; (2) that appellant Weidemann’s assignment of errors was not filed at or prior to the time of taking his appeal; (3) that Weidemann’s appeal was not taken in- time; and (4) that the decree appealed from is joint, not severable or subject to summons and severance, and that, therefore, if Weidemann’s appeal is dismissed, Pillsbury’s must also he dismissed.

Final decrees in admiralty have been appealable to this court since its establishment in 1891. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6, 26 Stat. 828 , now Judicial Code, § 128, as amended February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936 , 28 U. S. C. § 225 (28 USCA § 225). Now interlocutory decrees in admiralty are likewise appealable. Judicial Code, § 129, as amended April 3, 1926, ci 102, 44 Stat. 233 , 28 U. S. C. § 227 (28 USCA § 227).

The Act of March 3, 1891, did not prescribe the form or manner in which appeals to this court should be taken. Whether this should be by petition for and allowance of the appeal, or simply by…

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.