GREGORY v. PIKE

GREGORY v. PIKE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. October 23, 1896.) No. 195. Appeal — Decree Pursuant to Mandate. An appeal Irom a decree entered in a circuit court pursuant to a mandate from the circuit court of appeals should not be entertained by the latter court when no errors are assigned as to any matters arising subsequent to the mandate, or when permission for appeal was not obtained or asked of the appellate court. In re Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 20 O. O. A. Ill, 73 Fed. 908, followed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. This was a suit originally brought in the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts by Charles A. Gregory against Frederick A. Pike and others to compel the surrender of certain notes. The case was removed to the United States circuit court. In a supplemental bill filed by complainant, additional parties were made defendants, and, by amendment, after the decease of Charles A. Gregory his executrix, Mary II. Pike, was made defendant. The facts out of which the controversy arose are fully stated in 15 C. C. A. 33, and 67 Fed. <837. Appeals from the decree of the circuit court were taken to the circuit court of appeals, and that court made an order directing the form of the final decree. The case was remanded to the circuit court with a mandate requiring the entry of the; decree in conformity with the order. From the decree entered by the circuit court, plaintiff appealed. Francis A. Brooks, for appellant. John Lowell and Thomas II. Talbot, for appellee. Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and WEBB and ALDRICH, District Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. This is an appeal, allowed by the circuit court from a decree entered in that comí pursuant to a mandate from this court; and we are now asked by ihe appellee, Mary H. Pike, to dismiss it. It is now said that the decree in the circuit court departs from the mandate in some particulars. The departures were not assigned as errors. No errors were assigned as to anything arising subsequent to the judgment of this court on which the mandate issued, nor was the permission of this court for the present appeal ob tained or asked. Therefore the; principles announced by us in Re Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 20 C. C. A. 111, 73 Fed. 908, and in Re Pike, where our opinion was passed down September 17, 1896 (76 Fed. 400), govern this case, and compel us to conclude that this appeal will not lie. The appeal is dismissed, with costs in this court for Mary H. Pike incidental to her motion to dismiss.