THE PROTECTOR, 79 U. S. 700 (1870)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 79 U. S. 700 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

The Protector, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 700 700 (1870)

The Protector

79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 700


1. The beginning and termination of the late rebellion in reference to acts of limitation is to be determined by some public act of the political department.

2. The war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states.

3. Its commencement in certain states will be referred to the first proclamation of blockade embracing them and made on the 19th April, 1861, and as to other states to the second proclamation of blockade embracing them, and made on the 27th April, 1861.

4. Its termination as to certain states will be referred to the proclamation of the 2d April, 1866, declaring that the war had closed in those states, and as to Texas to the proclamation of the 20th August, 1866, declaring it had closed in that state also.

5. Alabama was one of the states named in the first proclamation of blockade, and the first proclamation as to the termination of the war.

6. Accordingly, an appeal from a decree by the Circuit Court of Alabama of the 6th April, 1861, which was filed in the clerk's office on the 17th May, 1871, was dismissed, it being held on the principles above stated that more than five years had elapsed between the date of the decree and the filing of the appeal allowing the suspension of the time produced by the war.

This was a motion by Mr. P. Phillips to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States in the Southern District of Alabama. A motion to dismiss an appeal from the same decree, for the reason that it was not brought within one year from the passage of the Act of March 2, 1867, [Footnote 1] had been made and denied at the December Term 1869. [Footnote 2] The appeal was subsequently dismissed on another ground. [Footnote 3] The ground of this present motion chanrobles.com-red

Page 79 U. S. 701

was that more than five years, excluding the time of the rebellion, elapsed after the rendering of the decree before the appeal was brought.

By the act of 1789, it is provided that writs of error shall not be brought but within five years from the rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of. By the act of 1803, appeals from decrees were allowed subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions as writs of error. [Footnote 4] As a writ of error is not brought [Footnote 5] until it is filed in the court where the judgment was rendered, so an appeal, as this Court considers, is not brought until it is rendered or filed in the same way.

The decree in this case was rendered on the 5th of April, 1861, and the present appeal was allowed on the 6th of May, 1871, and filed in the clerk's office of the proper court, or brought, on the 17th of May, 1871.

In Hanger v. Abbott, [Footnote 6] it was held that the statute of limitations did not run during the rebellion against citizens of states adhering to the national government having demands against citizens of the insurgent states. And the question, of course, was whether, making allowance for the suspension of time produced by the rebellion, the appeal was or was not in season.


ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman