Case ID: f_19/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pardee, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Ashland.
    
    
      (Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.
    
    December, 1883.)
    1. Practice—Appeal—Remittitur.
    Where a judgment was rendered by the district court against claimants for an appealable amount, and thereafter proctor for libelants offered to enter a remittitur of so much of the judgment as to reduce it below the appealable amount, and the district court refused to allow the remittitur, held, that it was within the discretion of the district judge to allow or refuse to allow the remittitur to be entered.
    
      Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 120, followed.
    2. Same.
    A remittitur comes too late when offered to be entered after an appeal has been allowed.
    On Motion to Dismiss Appeal in Admiralty.
    
      R. King Cutler, for libelants.
    
      A. G. Brice, Joseph P. Hornor, and F. W. Baker, for claimant.
    
      
       Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
    
   Pardee, J.

It appears from the transcript that on June 7, 1883, the judgment was rendered in the district court for $51. On the same day a motion for appeal was made and allowed. June 9th a bond was given and accepted. .June 11th the decree was signed by the district judge, and on the same day a remittitwr of one dollar “was filed, but not entered on the minutes, nor allowed by the court.” The motion to dismiss must be overruled and refused because (1) the remittitur was not allowed by the court. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 120. (2) It came too late after an appeal was allowed and perfected.

Order accordingly.