Arrowsmith v. Harmoning
| Decision Date | 10 May 1886 |
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 243,118 U.S. 194,6 S.Ct. 1023 |
| Parties | ARROWSMITH v. HARMONING, Adm'x, and others. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Henry Newbegin, for plaintiff in error.
W. C. Cochran, for defendant in error.
This was a suit brought in the court of common pleas of Defiance county, Ohio, by Dick E. Arrowsmith, to recover the possession of the principal part of a certain 640 acres of land, and the judgment turned on the validity of a sale of the land by the guardian of Arrowsmith under an order of a probate court for that purpose. The case was tried without a jury, and from the finding of facts it appears that all the proceedings for the sale of the land were regular and in proper form, save only that the court dispensed with the giving of a bond by the guardian, under a certain requirement of the statute, 'for the faithful discharge of his duties, and the faithful payment and accounting for of all moneys arising from such sale according to law.' The single question for determination was whether the failure to furnish this bond rendered the sale void. The court of common pleas decided that it did not, and gave judgment accordingly. This judgment was afterwards affirmed by the district court on petition in error. The case was then taken to the supreme court on another petition in error, where, among others, the following error was assigned: '(3) That, by affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas * * * by said district court, this plaintiff in error was deprived of his right of trial by jury, contrary to the provisions of the constitution of this state, and deprived of his property without due process of law, contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the United States.'
This is the first time, so far as the record discloses, that even the semblance of a federal right was set up in the case, and even here it is not easy to see on what ground it could be claimed that Arrowsmith had been deprived of his property in violation of the constitution of the United States. It was for this reason, perhaps, that the supreme court, while affirming the judgment of the district court, took no notice of this assignment of error in its opinion. The decision, however, necessarily involved a denial of the right which was claimed in this way, and thus we probably have technical jurisdiction. For this reason the motion to dismiss must be denied, but the question on which our jurisdiction depends was so manifestly decided right that the case ought not to be held for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. McGrew Coal Co. v. Ragland
... ... Irr. Co., 242 ... U.S. 20, 37 S.Ct. 7, 61 L.Ed. 123; Tidal Oil Co. v ... Flanagan, 263 U.S. 444, 44 S.Ct. 197, 68 L.Ed. 382; ... Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U.S. 194, 6 S.Ct. 1023, ... 30 L.Ed. 243; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, ... 27 S.Ct. 556, 51 L.Ed. 879; Am. Ry. Express ... ...
-
State ex rel. McGrew Coal Co. v. Ragland
...20, 37 Sup. Ct. 7, 61 L. Ed. 123; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U.S. 444, 44 Sup. Ct. 197, 68 L. Ed. 382; Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U.S. 194, 6 Sup. Ct. 1023, 30 L. Ed. 243; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 27 Sup. Ct. 556, 51 L. Ed. 879; Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Commonwealth of Ky., ......
-
Savage v. Walshe
...erroneous rulings of law committed by the trial judge acting within his jurisdiction. As was said in Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194, 196, 6 Sup. Ct. 1023, 1024 (30 L. Ed. 243): ‘The constitutional provision is, ‘nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property wi......
-
Neil v. State of Vermont
...induced the judgment.' See, also, Eureka, etc., Canal Co. v. Superior Court, 116 U. S. 410, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429; Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1023. In the vendor had, during the same period of three years, sold every third or fourth day a box of fruit or a package......
-
How to review state court determinations of state law antecedent to federal rights.
...86, 91 (1909); Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U.S 170, 177 (1907); Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389, 393 (1896); Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U.S. 194, 195 (222.) Am. Ry. Express Co., 273 U.S. at 272-73 (quoting Enter. Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mut. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165-66 (1917))......