Alfred Tracy, Surviving Partner of Edward Tracy, Plaintiff In Error v. William Holcombe
| Decision Date | 01 December 1860 |
| Citation | 65 U.S. 426,16 L.Ed. 742,24 How. 426 |
| Parties | ALFRED TRACY, SURVIVING PARTNER OF EDWARD TRACY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM HOLCOMBE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota.
The record showed that a suit was brought by Tracy as surviving partner against Holcombe, and on the 30th of December, 1857, the judgment of the court was entered that he should recover $2,340.71, with costs.
On the 13th of July, 1859, the Supreme Court ordered that 'the judgment of the court below be, in all things, reversed, and a new trial granted.'
On the 8th of October, 1859, a writ of error was issued pursuant to section third of the act of Congress entitled, 'An act for the admission of Minnesota into the Union,' passed May 11, 1858, and section eighteen of the act of Congress entitled, 'An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1859,' passed June 12, 1858.
It was submitted on the record by Mr. Phillips for the plaintiff in error.
This case has been brought here by a writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. But upon looking into the transcript, it appears that the judgment which it is proposed to revise is a judgment reversing the decision of the court below, and awarding a new trial. There is, therefore, no final judgment in the case, and the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Thompson
... ... is limited to the review by writs of error or appeals ... of final decisions of the courts ... The plaintiffs, ... William J. Thompson, Samuel C. Wall, and Ellen Wall, had ... Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51, 12 L.Ed. 46; Tracy ... v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426, 16 L.Ed. 742; ... ...
-
United States v. Paul Beatty
...mode indicated. It is therefore essentially interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of a writ of error from this court. Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426, 16 L. ed. 742; Macfarland v. Brown, 187 U. S. 239, 47 L. ed. 159, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; United States v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385, 43 L. ed. 1......
-
Seward Haseltine v. Central National Bank
...upon the authority of Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 465, 11 L. ed. 1058; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51, 12 L. ed. 46; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426, 16 L. ed. 742; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588, 21 L. ed. 758; St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628, 21 L. ed. 813; Parcels v. Johnson, 20......
-
Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff
...in the court below cannot be brought here on writ of error. Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 466; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; McComb v. Knox Co. 91 U. S. 1; Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176; Davis v. Crouch, 94 U. S. 514. This clearly ......