Overview

From the author's NOTICE. The decisions of the federal courts which construe the appellate courts act of March 3, 1891, and which have been published to the present time, are only three in number, one a decision of the Supreme Court and two decisions of circuit courts. In In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200, the Supreme Court holds, (1) that the appellate courts act, approved March 3, 1891, went into immediate operation upon its passage, e. g., that it went into operation so as to permit the suing out, March 21, 1891, of a writ of error from the Supreme Court to review a sentence for an infamous crime pronounced by a circuit court March 18, 1891, in a criminal suit tried in 1890; (2) that a writ of error from the Supreme Court to review a sentence of a circuit court in a criminal prosecution by the United States for an infamous crime is, under the appellate courts act of March 3, 1891, a writ of right; (3) that a citation may be signed by a justice of the Supreme Court under Revised Statutes, section 999, as an authority for issuing the writ of error under Revised Statutes, section 1004; (4) that the Supreme Court has power under Revised Statutes, section 716, to issue a supersedeas to stay execution of the sentence of a circuit court in a criminal case, and that this power is not abrogated by the appellate courts act of March 3, 1891; (5) that a justice of the Supreme Court has authority not only to allow a writ of error from the sentence of a circuit court for an infamous crime, but also to grant a supersedeas in the case; (6) that the rights of a defendant in a criminal prosecution by the United States in respect to a bill of exceptions stand as they did at the time he was convicted; and (7) that a crime which is punishable by imprisonment in a State prison or penitentiary is an infamous crime whether the accused is or is not sentenced or put to hard labor. For the opinion in the same case in the court below, see United States v. Claasen, 46 F. R. 67. The third decision is United States v. Sutton, 47 F. R. 129 (Circuit Court D. Col. August, 1891. Opinion by Sawyer, J.), holding (1) that a circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review the judgment of a district court (e. g., by writ of error), when the jurisdiction of the lower court is among the questions for review, but that under such circumstances a case must be taken directly to the Supreme Court; (2) that the only criminal appellate jurisdiction given to circuit courts of appeals is of those minor offenses, which are not punishable by imprisonment in a State Prison or Penitentiary and where the crime is therefore not infamous, and the appellate review of which is allowed by the act of March 3, 1879, Revised Statutes Sup. 451. The appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court over Ignited States circuit and district courts exorcised by direct appeal or writ of error seems not to be limited by the pecuniary amount in controversy, except possibly in a few exceptional classes of cases. Section 3 of the act of February 16, 1875 (see p. 20), which raised to S5,000 the previously existing limit of $2,000 to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the decisions of circuit courts, was expressly repealed by section 14 of the appellate courts act of March 3, 1891. Prior statutes, fixing the limit of $2,000, were repealed by the act of February 16, 1875, and wore not revived by its repeal, as Revised Statutes, section 12, provides, that whenever an act is repealed, which repealed a former act, such former act shall not thereby be revived, unless it shall be expressly so provided. The appellate courts act of March 3, 1891, imposes no pecuniary limit upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review directly tho decisions of circuit and district courts by appeal or writ of error; neither does any other statute of wide application....

Full Product Details

9781539158424

Table of Contents

Reviews

Author Information

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available