Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/81

FISCHER V. HAYES. 69 �neither an interlocutory nor a final decree on the merita in this suit, yefc tho order imposing the fine for the contempt was a final order or judgment as to the matter of the con- tempt. The last order as to that matter was made prior to the April term, 1880. Since it was made the April term, 1880, has begun and ended, and we are now in the Oetober term, 1880. The defondant's motion has not been made till in the present term. The general power of the court over its own judgments, orders, and decrees in civil and criminal cases, during the existence of the term at which they are first made, is held to be undeniable, {Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 167;) and it is further held that the power to vary a final judgment or order, at least in a case where there was jurisdiction to make it, does not exist after the term at which it was made. Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31; The Bank v. Lahitut, 1 Woods, 11. InU. S. v. Moss it was held to be too late after- final judgment and at the next term, and by motion only, to set aside a judgment on account of a sup- posed want of jurisdiction; and the authorities cited in that case show it to be well settled that no error of law or fact, if any, not involving jurisdiction, committed by this court in maiing the order now sought to be vacated, can be rectifie^ by this court on this motion. It does not appear that any error was committed; but, for the foregoing reason, it is not necessary to discuss that question. The utmost that the defendant could claim would be to have this court consider the question of jurisdiction now, as if he were in custody for the non-payment of the fine, and were before this court on a •writ of habeas corpus. �The foregoing views cover ail the suggestions made in ar- gument, that the defendant, in the infringement on which the order in question was based, was guided by what he under- stood to be the views expressed by the court in its decision in Fischer v. Wilson, 16 Blatchf. 220; that his infringement was, therefore, not wilful, though mistaken; that the in- fringement was committed by the making of sky-light bars ; that the patent of the plaintiff was and is invalid, and there- fojc'e the injunction that was disobeyed was not a lawful order, ��� �