Arnold Medberry, John Lawhead, Robert Nugen, and Abner Dickenson, Plaintiffs In Error v. the State of Ohio
| Decision Date | 01 December 1860 |
| Citation | 16 L.Ed. 739,24 How. 413,65 U.S. 413 |
| Parties | ARNOLD MEDBERRY, JOHN LAWHEAD, ROBERT H. NUGEN, AND ABNER J. DICKENSON, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF OHIO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary act.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court, and also in 7 Ohio State Reports, p. 523.
It came up on a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, which was sustained by Mr. Wolcott and Mr. Stanton, and opposed by Mr. Pugh.- Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant in error moves to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction, because the record does not present any question which this court has authority to re-examine, by the 25th section of the Judiciary act.
The construction of this section has been so often before this court, and the cases are so numerous which define and establish the conditions under which we assume jurisdiction, that it would be tedious to notice them, and superfluous to repeat or comment upon them.
For the purposes of this case, it is only necessary to say, 'that it must appear from the record of the case, either in express terms or by clear and necessary intendment, that one of the questions which this court had jurisdiction to re-examine and decide was actually decided by the State court.'
This may be ascertained either from the pleadings, or by bill of exceptions, or by a certificate of the court. But the assignment of errors, or the published opinion of the court, cannot be reviewed for that purpose. They make no part of the record proper, to which alone we can resort to ascertain the subject-matter of the litigation.
In this case, the declaration counts upon a contract made by the plaintiffs with the board of public works of Ohio, in 1855, for keeping a portion of the canal in repair for five years. It avers performance, and readiness to perform, and that those officers, acting under and by authority of an act of Assembly of Ohio, entitled 'An act making appropriations for the public works for 1857,' 'in violation and in open disregard of such contract, did wrongfully hinder and prevent,' &c.
The Supreme Court gave judgment for the defendants on a demurrer to this declaration.
It is not averred in the pleadings, or anywhere on the record, that this or any statute of Ohio was void, because it impaired the obligation of contracts.
The only legitimate inference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magwire v. Tyler
...10 Pet 291; Coon v. Gallagher, 15 Pet 18; Grand Gulf R.R. Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165; Adams v. Preston, 22 How. 488; Medbury v. The State of Ohio, 24 How. 413; Miller v. Nichols, 4 Wheat. 315; Wilson v. The Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 249; Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344; ......
-
Jackson v. State
...Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 11 S. Ct. 577, 35 L. Ed. 225; Smith v. Jennings, 206 U. S. 276, 27 S. Ct. 610, 51 L. Ed. 1061; Medberry v. Ohio, 65 U. S. (24 How.) 413, 16 L. Ed. 739; Layton v. Missouri, 187 U. S. 356, 23 S. Ct. 137, 47 S. Ct. 214. Proper construction of the Constitution and laws of ......
-
Kappler v. Republic Pictures Corporation
... ... moving picture merchandise to points in the State of Iowa and to points outside of the State of ... of the United States ever since the time of John Marshall that acts of the Congress of the United ... ...
-
Ford v. Surget
...record; and, therefore, although incorporated in it, furnishes no aid in determining whether jurisdiction exists here. Medberry et al. v. State of Ohio, 24 How. 413. So far as the record is concerned, the whole case may have turned solely upon the insufficiency of the evidence to maintain t......