Case ID: us_62/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice TANEY", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Ballance, Appellant, v. Robert Forsyth, Luciene Dumain, and Antoine R. Bouis.
    The cpurt again decides that consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this court where the law does not give it; .but leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript, and use it so as to bring his ease legally before this court.
    ‘This was an appeal from the .Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.
    It was dismissed, and a motion made to reinstate it, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the. court.
   Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was dismissed on the 20th. of December last, because it did not appear that an appeal had been taken in the District Court. A motion ■ has now béen made to reinstate the. case, and, in support of that motion, a written agreement, signed by the counsel for the appellant and appellee, has been filed, consenting to reinstate the case, to waive all irregularities,- and to try the case on the merits.

But the consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this court, where the law does not give it. And, without an appeal taken in the District Court, this court has no jurisdiction, and the consent of parties cannot cure the defect. The motion is therefore overruled:

But if the plaintiff in error desires to supply the omission, and take an appeal in the District Court, and bring his case legally before us, he has leave, in order to save expense, to withdraw the transcript now filed, and to use it upon his appeal, leaving a receipt for it with the clerk of this court.' ■