Case ID: f_180/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROWN, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCLINTOCK v. CITY OF PAWTUCKET.
    (Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.
    July 26, 1910.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1202) — Remand—Proceedings in Lower Court — Bill oe Review — Leave to’ Pile.
    Where, after dismissal of an original bill in accordance with the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, complainant’s petition to that court for leave to apply to the Circuit Court for leave to reopen the case was denied, complainant’s petition for leave to file a bill of review, not preceded by an application to the Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to apply to the Circuit Court to file the same, would also be denied.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 4GG9; Dec. Dig. § 1202.]
    Action by John N. McClintock against the City of Pawtucket. On motion for leave to file a bill of review.
    Denied.
    John N. McClintock, pro se.
    Wm. R. Tillinghast, for defendant.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic fe § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   BROWN, District Judge.

This is a motion for leave to file a bill in the nature of a bill of review. The original bill was dismissed in accordance with the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. ’ .

The case relates to the Glover patent, No. 559,522, for sewage apparatus. The prior decisions upon this patent are American Sewage Disposal Co. v. City of Pawtucket (C. C.) 132 Fed. 35, 138 Fed. 811, 71 C. C. A. 177, and 146 Fed. 753, 77 C. C. A. 243. The latter opinion shows that the appellant applied to the Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to apply to the Circuit Court for leave to reopen the case, and that that petition was denied. The present motion was not preceded by an application to the Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to apply to this court. Under the circumstances this court is without power to grant the complainant’s motion. Southard et al. v. Russell, 16 How. 547, 570, 14 L. Ed. 1052; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 670, 672, 10 Sup. Ct. 638, 33 L. Ed. 1047; In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263, 17 Sup. Ct. 520, 41 L. Ed. 994.

Motion denied.