Case: CAILLOT & Another v. DEETKEN
Abbreviation: Caillot v. Deetken
Decision Date: 1885-01-26
Docket Number: 
Citation: 113 U.S. 215
Volume: 113
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CAILLOT & Another v. DEETKEN.
Judges: 
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
CAILLOT & Another v. DEETKEN.
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
Submitted January 12, 1885. —
Decided January 26, 1885.
This court can acquire no jurisdiction under a writ of error where the return to it is made by filing the transcript of the record here after the expiration of the term of this court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the Circuit Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. J. J. Scrivner for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. John A. Wright, Mr. John F. Hanna, and Mr. James M. Johnston for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Miller
delivered the opinion of the court.
It has been repeatedly decided by this court that where no return.has been made to a writ of error by filing the transcript of the record here, either before or during the term of the court next succeeding the filing of the writ in the Circuit Court, this court has, acquired no jurisdiction of the case, and the writ having then expired, can acquire none under that writ, and it must, therefore, be dismissed. Villabolos v. United States, 6 How. 81; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavasos, 6 Wall. 355, 358; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 624.
In the case before us the writ of error was filed in the Circuit Court in which, the record was March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this court November 28,1884. Two full terms of the court had passed, therefore, between the filing of the writ of error in the Circuit Court and its return with the transcript into this court.
It must, therefore, be
Dismissed for womt of jurisdiction.