Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Under treaty.-(Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Moreland v. Page, 20 How. 522; Boggs v. Mining Co., 3 Wall. 304; Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 650.) Right and title to lands. (Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Matthews v. Zane, 4 Cranch, 382; McČluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598; Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312; Fulton v. McAffee, 16 Peters, 149; City of Mobile v. Eslava, 16 Peters, 234; Crowell v. Randell, 16 Peters, 368; Chouteau v. Eckhardt, 2 How. 644; McDonogh v. Millandon, 3 How. 693; Walker v. Taylor, 5 How. 64; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343; Kennedy v. Hunt, 7 How. 586; Neilson v. Lagow, 7 How. 772; Almonester 7. Kenton, 9 How. 1; Barbarie v. Eslava, 9 How. 421; Henderson v. Tennessee, 10 How. 311; Lessieur v. Price, 12 How. 59.) The decision of the supreme court of Louisina against a right asserted under a treaty presents a quesion for jurisdiction of this court. (Burthe v. Denis, 133 U. S. 514.) This section is section 25 of the Judiciary Act, reproduced, somewhat enlarged. (Burthe v. Denis, 33 U. S. 514. See Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449.)

Personal rights.-Right to freedom. (Chouteau v. Marguerite, 12 Peters, 507; Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 2.) To writ of habeas corpus. (Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 540.) To religious liberty. (Permoli v. First Muicipality, 3 How. 589.)

In criminal cases.-Where a party under indictment or violation of a State law pleads a license from the United States, and decision of State court is against the cense, the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction. McGuire v. Com., 3 Wall. 382.) The reversal of a judg ent in a criminal case by State supreme court ordering ew trial is not a "final judgment.' (Rankin v. State, 11 Vall. 380.) Tax repugnant to United States Constitu

on.

(Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449.) Consideraon of a contract. (Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters, 410.) ot on a State law only. (McBride v. Hoey, 11 Peters, 67; Commercial Bk. v. Buckingham, 5 How. 317; Scott Jones, 5 How. 343; Congden v. Goodman, 2 Black, 574; ichigan C. R. Co. v. Michigan S. R. R., 19 How. 379; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 ow. 527; Medberry v. Ohio, 24 How. 413; Porter v. Fo

ley, 24 How. 415; Attorney-General v. Meeting House, 1 Black, 262; Austin v. The Alderman, 7 Wall. 694; Worthy v. The Commissioners, 9 Wall. 611.) To give jurisdiction the judgment must give effect to some State statute or constitution which impairs the obligation of a contract. (Knox v. Exchange Bk., 12 Wall. 379; see People v. Central R. R., 12 Wall. 455; Railroad Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511; Railroads v. Richmond, 15 Wall. 3.) Contract to pay in gold. (Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall. 687.) In legal tenders. (Dooley v. Smith, 13 Wall. 604.) State decision against execution by United States marshal. (Clements v. Berry, 14 How. 398; Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334; Sharpe v. Doyle, 102 U. S. 686.) Against validity of an entry of land allowed by United States officers. (Lytel v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193.) Title to land. (Bell v. Hearne, 19 How. 252; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Wynn v. Morris, 20 How.3; Berthold v. McDonald, 23 How. 334; Langfear v. Hunley, 4 Wall. 205; Carpenter v. Williams, 9 Wall. 785,) Authority of United States marshal. (Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334.) In insolvency. (Carpo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610.) In bankruptcy. (Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261; Calcote v. Stanton, 18 How. 243.) Mexican treaty. (Gill v. Oliver, 11 How. 529.) If the State refuses to carry into effect the mandate of the Supreme Court, the latter will proceed to a final decision and award execution (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304), and may send its process to either the appellate or the inferior court of a State. (Williams v. Bruffy, 102 U. S. 248.) The power to review does not extend to statutes passed by territorial legislatures. (Miners' Bk. v. Iowa, 12 How. 1; Messenger v. Mason, 10 Wall. 507.) Questions of evidence. (Mackey v. Dillon, 4 How. 421; White v. Wright, 22 How. 19; Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 132; Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Moore v. Mississippi, 21 Wall. 636; Atherton Ex. v. Fowler, 3 Cent. L. J. 60; Long v. Converse, 8 Chic. L. N. 121; S. C., 13 Alb. L. J. 118.

Practice. Remedy by writ of error. (Verden v. Coleman, 22 How. 192; Webster v. Reed, 11 How. 437.) Right of. (Twichell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321.)

Waiver of right. (Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172.) When operates as supersedeas. (O'Dowd v. Russell, 14 Wall. 402; Review Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632; Tarver v. Keach, 15 Wall. 67; The Victory, 6 Wall. 382.) Remanding cause for further proceedings. (Winn v. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 135; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51.) Dismissal. (Christ Church v. Philadelphia, 20 How. 26; Millinger v. Hartupee, 6 Wall. 258; Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 14 Wall, 26; Hurley v. Street, 14 Wall. 85; Pennywit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 380.) For defect of parties. (Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 8.) Interlocutory decree. (Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420.) Final judgment, what is. (Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449; Olney v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 308.) Adverse party. (Poydras de la Lande v. Treasurer, 17 How. 1.) Writ, to what court issued. (Miller v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655.) When jurisdiction does not attach. Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585; Day v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 97.)

$224.

Precedence of writs of error to State courts in criminal cases.-Cases on writ of error, to revise the judgment of a State ourt in any criminal cases, shall have precedence -n the docket of the Supreme Court of all cases o which the government of the United States is ot a party, excepting only such cases as the court, n its discretion, may decide to be of public imortance. (Rev. Stats. sec. 710.)

The following matter is taken from CHAPTER ELEVEN, SUPREME OURT JURISDICTION. It appears to be, if not repealed, at least, superled by the new law creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals.

691. Judgments in circuit court on writ of error. 18 U. S. Stats. 316; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 136. (Repealed, 26 U. S. Stats, 9, sec. 1

In general.-An appeal removes a cause entirely, subjecting law and et to a review and retrial, and a writ of error removes for re-examination thing but the law. (Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321; U. S. v. Goodwin, 7 anch, 108.) An action at law in the circuit court can be taken up only writ of error (The Charles Carter, 4 Dall. 22; Sarchet v. U. S., 12 ters, 143; Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530; Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 12 How. FED. PROC.-44.

387) Where the transcript is docketed, the Supreme Court will determine whether it is properly taken by appeal or by writ of error. (Hurst v. Hollingsworth, 94 U. S. 111.) The agreement of parties cannot authorize the revision of a judgment in any manner other than that provided by law (Kelsey v Forsyth, 21 How. 85); and if the case is brought without service of the writ of error, it will be dismissed. (Washington Co. v. Durant, 7 Wall. 634) State legislation cannot be applied to regulate the mode of bringing up causes for review by the Supreme Court (Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530; Graham v Bayne, 18 How. 60; Hudgins v. Kemp, 18 How. 530; Kelsey v. Forsythe, 21 How. 85); nor can a compact between States take away the right of a party to a writ. (Wilson v. Mason, 1 Cranch, 45.) The court cannot re-examine questions of fact upon a writ of error. (Miles v. U. S., 103 U.S. 304.) The order remanding a cause to a State court from which it was removed is reviewable. (Ayres v. Chicago, 101 U. S. 184.)

Matter in dispute. -The matter in dispute is that for which suit is brought and in relation to which jurors and witnesses are called (Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337); and jurisdiction depends on the sum or value of the matter in dispute (Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Peters, 33), and the judgment is prima facie the measure of the jurisdiction. (Troy v. Evans, 97 U. S. 1.) If the record shows the matter in dispute is less than five thousand dollars, the wit will be dismissed. (Winston v. U. S., 3 How. 771.) If the matter in dispute is precisely five thousand dollars no writ of error lies. (Walker v. U. S, 4 Wall 163; West U. Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565.) If plaintiff avers that the value of the property is more than five thous and dollars, defendant may sue out a writ of error to a judgment against him. (Bennett v. Butterworth, 8 How 124.) So if the jury find the value less than five thousand dollars, and the plaintiff releases that verdict, defendant may sue out a writ of error (Bennett v. Butterworth, 8 How. 124); but if the declaration in ejectment describes the land as of the value of five hundred dollars and over, a writ of error to a judgment in favor of defendant will be dismissed (Parker v. Latey, 12 Wall. 390); and although a judgment is for more than five thousand dollars, if defendant admitted that he owed part of the amount, making the matter in dispute less than five thousand dollars, no writ of error lies. (Tintsman v. First Nat. Bank, 100 U. S. 6.) If judgment of restitution is rendered for a lot worth less than five thousand dollars, taken by a writ of possession on a judgment in ejectment, no writ of error lies. (Grant v. McKee, 1 Peters, 248.) So if defendant in replevin gets judgment for a return of part of the property, plaintiff cannot sue out a writ of error if that part is worth less than five thousand dollars (Pierce v. Wade, 100 U. S. 444). If the nature of the subject is such that the value of the matter in dispute cannot be ascertained from plaintiff's demand, nor the finding of the jury, it may be shown by affidavits on due notice to the adverse party (Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20; Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22); and time may be allowed to produce the affidavits. (Rush v. Parker, 5 Cranch, 287). In an action upon a money demand, where the general issue is pleaded, the matter in dispute is the debt claimed, and not merely the damages alleged or the prayer for judgment. (Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall, 337; Schacker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 93 U. S. 241 See p. 895). In determining the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court on appeal, the value of the matter in dispute is to be determined by the amount due at the time of the judgment from which the appeal was taken. (Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617. And see N. Y., & E. R. Co. v. Fifth Nat. Bank, 118 U. S. 608.) Where the plaintiff in error fails to show, either from the record or by affidavits, that the matter in dispute exceeds five thousand dollars, the court will dismiss for want of jurisdiction. (Johnson v. Wilkins, 116 U. S. 392; Wells v. Wilkins, 116 U. S. 393; Cox v. Western Landtc. Co., 123 U. S. 375.) So an appeal from a decree involving separate judgments on separate claims for separate creditors will be dismissed, as to those who recovered less than five

thousand dollars. (Hassall v. Wilcox, 115 U. S. 598; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S 61.)

All final judgments.-The writ of error allowed lies only from a final judgment. (Rutherford v Fisher, 4 Dail 22.) A judgmert dismissing a petition in the nature of an audita querela is a final judgment. (New Orleans R. Co. v. Morgan, 10 Wall. 256.) A party to a judgment may sue out a writ of error, although the judgment was entered by default (Macker v. Thomas, 7 Wheat, 530), or for want of a plea. (Macker v. Thomas, 7 Wheat. 530.) It lies where a party is aggrieved in the foundation proceedings, judgment, or execution. (Riggs v. Johnson, 6 Wall. 166. See Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 427.) It lies to a judgment entered on report of a referee. (York & C. R. Co. v Myers, 18 How. 246; Heckers v. Fowler, 2 Wall. 123.) So it lies if the circuit court strikes out a judgment after the lapse of the term (Bank v. Moss, 7 How. 31); and so rendering judgment for the wrong party (Rogers v. Burlington, 3 Wall. 654; Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82); or ordering a real action revived, and entering judgment against the heir, may be examined by writ of error, even without a bill of exceptions. (Macker v. Thomas, 7 Wheat. 533.) A writ of error lies to an order directing a mandamus to issue commanding che levy of a tax. (Memphis v. Brown, 94 U. S. 715.) If a judgment for a certain sum is entered, the writ lies, though no disposition was made of a lea of nul tiel record. (Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401.) The partial satisaction of a judgment will not prevent plaintiff from suing out the writ, even though execution was issued previous to taking the writ. (United States v. Dashiel, 3 Wall. 688.)

Discretion-Error will not lie. -A writ of error will not lie rom an order or a motion addressed to the discretion of the court, as on motion to enter an exoneratur of bail (Morsell v. Hall, 13 How. 212); or n order granting or refusing leave to amend (Walden v. Craig, 9 Wheat. 76; U. S. v. Baford, 3 Peters, 12); or to a judgment on a writ of error in mproperly granting leave to amend (Pickett v. Legerwood, 7 Peters, 144); r to a decision of the circuit court allowing a party to supply a lost leading (Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall 672); or an order staying a suit (Livgston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch, 578); or an order granting or refusing a ew trial (Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213; Doswell v. De La Lanza, 20 How. 29; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160; parrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 97; Insurance Co. v Barton, 13 Wall. 603); as his is not the subject for a bill of exceptions. (Blunt v. Smith, 7 Wheat. 18; Henry v. Ricketts, 1 Cranch C. C. 545; Browne v. Clarke, 4 How. 4; . S. v. Hodge, 6 How. 279; Warner v. Norton, 20 How. 448; Pomeroy v. cate Bank, I Wall. 592; Laber v. Cooper, 7 Will. 565.) So a writ of error ill not lie from a ruling upon the question as to in what order counsel shall Idress the jury (Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363; U. S v. Dunham, 21 aw. Rep. 591); or to an order disbarring an attorney (Ex parte Robinn, 19 Wall. 513.) A writ of error does not lie to a judgment refusing to tash a forthcoming bond (Amis v. Smith, 16 Peters, 303;) nor to an der quashing an execution (Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 618; Evans v ee, 11 Peters, 1; Amis v. Smith, 16 Peters 303; McCargo v. Chapman, How. 555; see Ex parte Flippin, 94 U. S. 318); nor to an order awardg an execution (Early v. Rogers, 16 How. 590); nor to an order on otion for stay of execution (Early v. Rogers, 16 How 590); nor to an order arding, or refusing to award, restitution, or setting aside a writ preusly granted. (Smith v. Trabue, 9 Peters, 4; Gregg v. Forsyth, 2 Wall. Barton v. Forsyth, 5 Wall. 190.)

When will not lie.-If judgment is entered in favor of some dedants, but not as to others (U. S. v. Girault, 3 How. 22), or if a case is missed for want of jurisdiction (Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. ; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507), or if plaintiff submits to a nont (Evans v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73), or if the court refuses to reinstate a

« AnteriorContinuar »