Case Name: McLELLAND v. THURSTON
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1910-05-26
Citations: 35 App. D.C. 361
Docket Number: No. 2160
Parties: McLELLAND v. THURSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 35
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
McLELLAND v. THURSTON.
Appeal and Erbob.
Where, upon the reversal by this court of a decree of the lower court, dismissing a bill to vacate as fraudulent an assignment of a claim against a decedent’s estate, a decree was entered in conformity with this court’s mandate, from which decree the defendant appealed, a motion to dismiss the appeal was overruled, on the ground that, although he might have appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the first decree of this court, he had the option of waiting until a decree was entered below on the mandate, and then taking an appeal as a necessary step towards an appeal to the Supreme Court; and the decree below was affirmed.
No. 2160.
Submitted May 16, 1910.
Decided May 26, 1910.
Hearing on a motion by the complainant to dismiss an appeal by the defendant from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia vacating as fraudulent an assignment of a claim against a decedent’s estate.
Motion overruled and decree affirmed.
Mr. Charles L. Diggs for the motion.
Mr. Henry E. Davis opposed.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Shepard
delivered the opinion of the Court:
A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal because the decree appealed from was entered in strict conformity with the mandate of this court. The appellant would have had a right to appeal, we think, directly from the decree of this court to the Supreme Court of the United States, but it was not obligatory upon him to do so. He had the option of waiting until the decree was finally entered in the court below. We think he has a right of appeal to this court as a necessary step towards an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will take up the opinion and decree of this court heretofore rendered. The motion to dismiss will, therefore, be denied, and as the decree below was entered in conformity with the mandate of this court, the same is now— affirmed with costs.
See Thurston v. McLellan, 34 App. D. C. 294. — Reporter.