UNITED STATES ex rel. SCHAUFFLER v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES ex rel. SCHAUFFLER v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 24, 1906.) Appeal and Ebrob — Judgment at Law — Mode op Review. A judgment in an action at law in a.federal court is not reviewable by appeal, and an attempted appeal in such case does not give the appellate court jurisdiction. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 10-14.] Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. On motion to dismiss appeal. Frank H. Platt, for the motion. Hubert E. Rogers, opposed. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, so called, taken from a judgment for the defendant in an action at law. Instead of obtaining a writ of error, the plaintiff in the suit in the court below served a notice of appeal upon the attorney for the defendant, and the judge of the court below indorsed it “Appeal allowed,” and afterwards signed a citation. This court did not obtain jurisdiction, and the motion is therefore granted. In Stevens v. Clark, 62 Fed. 321, 10 C. C. A. 379, the authorities are collected, and that decision is in all respects in point. Ordered accordingly.