Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
WENAR v. JONES, BISHOP OF PORTO RICO
217 U.S. 593·Supreme Court of the United States·1910
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WENAR v. JONES, BISHOP OF PORTO RICO.
APPEAL'PROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO.
No. 143.
Submitted April 8, 1910.
Decided April 25, 1910.
In this case the decision appealed from, being merely an order to dismiss and not a determination on the merits, is not reviewable here and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Appellee contended that the decision appealed from is not in itself of a reviewable character being merely an order dismissing an appeal and not a determination on the merits.
Mr. Willis Sweet for appellant.
Mr. Paul Fuller and Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796, and cases cited.
The headnote in this case is as follows:
A decision of the Supreme Court of a Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court because of failure to docket the cause in time is not a final judgment or decision within the meaning of the statutes regarding writs of error and appeals to this court: Mandamus is the proper remedy in such case.