Case Name: ROBERTSON v. COCKRELL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-12-23
Citations: 209 F. 843
Docket Number: No. 2,493
Parties: ROBERTSON v. COCKRELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 843–843

Head Matter:
ROBERTSON v. COCKRELL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 23, 1913.
On Application for Rehearing, January 20, 1914.)
No. 2,493.
Appeal and Ebbor (§ 554 )—Bill op Exceptions—Necessity.
Where no bill of exceptions has been seasonably allowed, the judgment will be affirmed.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2472-, 2477; Dec. Dig. § 554. ]
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi; Henry C. Niles, Judge.
Action between M. E. Robertson, trustee, etc., and N. L. Cockrell. Judgment in favor of the latter, and the former brings error.
Affirmed.
Wm. H. Watkins, of Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff in error.
Edw. Mayes, of Jackson, Miss., for defendant in error.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
For other eases see same topic & § numbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, for want of bill of exceptions seasonably allowed, upon the authority of Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249, 23 L. Ed. 319; Jones v. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co., 131 U. S. cl, appendix 24 L. Ed. 925; Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 12 Sup. Ct. 450, 36 L. Ed. 162; Glaspell v. Northern Pacific, 144 U. S. 211, 12 Sup. Ct. 593, 36 L. Ed. 409; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 Sup. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438; United States v. Jones, 149 U. S. 263, 13 Sup. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; Morse v. Anderson, 150 U. S. 156, 14 Sup. Ct. 43, 37 L. Ed. 1037.
On Application for Rehearing.
The record in this case shows that judgment was rendered in the District Court May 10, 1912, that a new trial was refused, making the judgment final, May 15, 1912, and that on May 15, 1912, the court granted 60 days from that date to prepare and present for approval a bill of exceptions. The time granted within which to prepare and present a bill of exceptions expired July 15, 1912, and the record shows no further time granted. The bill of exceptions found in the transcript was signed November 25, 1912. Writ of error was allowed January 25, 1913, conditioned upon giving a bond in the sum of $150. Bond was given and approved March 12, 1913. Citation in error was issued and service accepted March- 15, 1913.
Thus the record shows, not- only that the bill of exceptions was not seasonably allowed in the case, but that the writ of error was not sued out within 6 months after the entry of final judgment, as required by the eleventh section of the act of 1891 creating Circuit Courts of Appeals.
Rehearing refused.