Overview
Case summary
This case involves a procedural appeal where T.B. Merrill, receiver, appealed from a decree entered by the circuit court in exact accordance with a mandate from the Circuit Court of Appeals following a previous appeal. The National Bank of Jacksonville moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that no appeal lies from a decree entered in compliance with an appellate mandate. The Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss, relying on established Supreme Court precedent, particularly Stewart v. Salamon and Humphrey v. Baker, which hold that second appeals from mandate-compliant decrees are not permitted. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the Judiciary Act of 1891 (creating circuit courts of appeals) changed this practice, noting that even if appeals to the Supreme Court were available, the uniform practice against second appeals should not be varied.
Abstract
A receiver appealed a decree entered by the circuit court in exact accordance with an appellate mandate from a prior appeal. The opposing party moved to dismiss, arguing no appeal lies from a mandate-compliant decree, and the court granted the motion based on Supreme Court precedent holding second appeals impermissible. The court rejected arguments that the Judiciary Act changed this practice, dismissing the appeal.
Opinion of the court
opinionPARDEE, Circuit Judgejoined by McCOBMICK, MAXEY
- No jurisdiction for second appeal from decree entered pursuant to mandate
- Following Supreme Court precedent in Stewart v. Salamon and Humphrey v. Baker
- Judiciary Act of 1891 does not change established practice
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida
Procedural posture
- Motion to dismiss appeal based on lack of jurisdiction for second appeal
- Merits of underlying case (previously decided)
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
De novo (jurisdictional issue)
No jurisdiction for second appeal from mandate-compliant decree under established Supreme Court precedent
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Appellant appealed from decree entered in accordance with appellate mandate — procedural · error foundNot applicable - jurisdictional error · not applicable
Standards of review
- Jurisdiction for second appeal — de novo Jurisdictional issues reviewed de novo
Timeline
Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Final disposition - no jurisdiction for second appeal from mandate-compliant decree
Circuit court entered decree in exact accordance with appellate mandate
Outcome: Decree entered as instructed
Trial court complied with appellate instructions
Case heard and determined on merits by Circuit Court of Appeals
Outcome: Decree reversed, cause remanded with instructions
Established law of the case on merits
Facts & evidence
Key facts
4 facts- Case was previously heard and determined on merits by this court
- Previous decree reversed circuit court and remanded with specific instructions
- Circuit court entered decree in exact accordance with mandate
- Appellant appealed from that decree
Procedural history
5 steps- Previous appeal decided at last term (21 C. C. A. 282, 75 Fed. 148)
- Decree reversed and cause remanded with instructions
- Mandate entered in circuit court
- Decree entered in accordance with mandate
- Present appeal filed
Authorities
Cited authorities (8)
Statutes
- An act to establish circuit courts of appeals, and to define and regulate in certain cases the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1891
Standards & doctrines
- Supreme Court precedent establishing no jurisdiction for second appeals from mandate-compliant decrees
Legal principles applied
- No appeal lies from decree entered in accordance with mandate from previous appeal