Appeal of Clarke
| Decision Date | 20 April 1898 |
| Citation | 70 Conn. 483,40 A. 111 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of CLARKE. |
Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county.
Petition by Henry P. Clarke, administrator, to hear claims. From judgment rendered by the superior court upon advice of the supreme court of errors, he appeals. 39 Atl. 155, 70 Conn. 195. Affirmed.
Goodwin Stoddard, for appellant.
John H. Perry, for appellee.
It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that this appeal has been taken in order to lay a foundation for a writ of error from the supreme court of the United States. It was unnecessary for that purpose. Such writs of error run to the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had. Rev. St. U. S. § 709. In the present case the superior court may properly be regarded as occupying that position. On the reservation upon which it previously came here (Clarke's Appeal, 70 Conn. 195, 39 Atl. 155), the superior court was advised to render the precise judgment which is the subject of this appeal. This advice was mandatory. No other decision could have been pronounced by the superior court than that which was pronounced. It was the last word of the judicial authority of this state. No right remained to review here a judgment which this court had. On full consideration, advised the superior court to render. It was therefore reviewable on a writ of error issuing directly to that court from the supreme court of the United States. Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294; Foote v. Board, 162 U. S. 439, 16 Sup. Ct. 853. It is true, however, that, under circumstances quite similar, such writs have been addressed to the highest court in the state, and that this court has recognized the validity of that method of procedure. Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143; New Haven & N. Co. v. State, 44 Conn. 376, 392. The latter decision was given at a time when the practice in this respect upon writs of error from the supreme court of the United States to state courts could not be considered as fully settled. We shall on this occasion follow the precedent thus established, but have thought it proper to explain our views at length as to the correct practice, so that appeals of this character may not hereafter be unnecessarily brought. There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry Clarke v. Nancy Clarke
...as its prior judgment had settled the controversy between the parties, yet entertained the appeal, and affirmed the decree below. 70 Conn. 483, 40 Atl. 111. Messrs. S. F. Phillips, L. F. Youmans, and F. D. McKenney for plaintiff in Messrs. John H. Perry and Winthrop H. Perry for defendants ......
-
In re Hencke's Estate
... ... No. 33983 ... Supreme Court of Minnesota ... July 20, 1945 ... [19 N.W.2d 719] ... [220 Minn. 416] ... Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Martin Hughes, Judge ... Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Fred W. Hencke, ... The authorities are multitudinous on this question, but the Clark case in the U. S. Supreme Court [Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 20 S.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. 1028] and the Higgins case [First & American National Bank v. Higgins], 208 Minn. 295 [293 N.W. 585], ... ...
-
Brookfield v. Hutchins
...11 A.2d 853 126 Conn. 435 BROOKFIELD v. HUTCHINS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.March 6, 1940 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Earnest C. Simpson, ... Action ... by Frank Brookfield against Barbara K. Hutchins to recover ... attached because the ancillary administrator found property ... in the probate district the legal title to which was in the ... deceased. Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 190, 20 ... S.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. 1028, affirming Clarke's Appeal, 70 ... Conn. 195, 39 A. 155; Id., 70 Conn. 483, 40 A ... ...
-
Converse v. ÆTna Nat. Bank
...became the duty of that court (no change in the pleadings having been made) to enter a judgment sustaining the demurrer. Clark's Appeal, 70 Conn. 483, 40 Atl. 111. Such a judgment was accordingly rendered, and, while in terms based simply on the third ground of demurrer, it is not erroneous......