Bondurant, Tutrix v. Watson
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 447,103 U.S. 278 |
| Parties | BONDURANT, TUTRIX, v. WATSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
'State of Louisiana, ss:
'The Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Louis'a, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, greeting:
'Because in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of the judgment of a plea, which is in our said Supreme Court, before us, between Frank Watson, plaintiff, and Mrs. Ella F. Bondurant, tutrix, &c., defendant, No. 6564 on the docket of this court, it is claimed by the said defendant that, being a citizen of the State of Mississippi, and the said Watson being a citizen of Louisiana, and in the said cause the rights, titles, and privileges of said defendant, Mrs. Bondurant, tutrix, &c., under the statutes and under the Constitution of the United States, are by her claimed, and that the decision and judgment of this honorable Supreme Court of Louisiana is against the said titles, rights, and privileges of said defendant, Mrs. Bondurant, specially set up under the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and because the said Mrs. Bondurant has filed her petition herein for a writ of error to the hon. Supreme Court of the United States at Washington, D. C., claiming that a manifest error hath happened, to the great damage of the said defendant, Mrs. E. F. Bondurant, executrix, tutrix, &c., as by said defendant's complaint appears: We being willing that error, if any hath been, should be duly corrected, and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that then under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the record and proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the same, to the Supreme Court of the United States, together with this writ, so that you have the same at Washington, on the second Monday of October next, in the said Supreme Court, to be then and there held, that the record and proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the said Supreme Court may cause further to be done therein to correct that error what of right, and according to the laws and customs of the United States, should be done.
'Witness the Honorable T. C. Manning, Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court of Louisiana, this fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven.
'Clerk of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.'
Mr. Samuel R. Walker for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Edwin T. Merrick and Mr. George W. Race, contra.
We have no jurisdiction in this case, as no writ of error has ever been issued. Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355. By the ninth section of the act of May 8, 1792, c. 36 (1 Stat....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Courtney
...exists. See Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80, 85, 25 L.Ed. 407; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10, 2 Otto 10, 23 L.Ed. 524; Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 278, 281, 26 L.Ed. 447; Lackawanna Coal & Iron Co. v. Bates, C.C., 56 F. 737, (opinion by late District Judge John F. Phillips); Reed v. Bloom, D......
-
Wells v. Russellville Anthracite Coal Mining Co.
... ... v. Keyes, 96 U.S ... 199, 24 L.Ed ... [206 F. 530] ... 656; ... Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 285, 26 L.Ed. 447; ... Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121, 124, 11 Sup.Ct. 966, ... ...
-
Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v. Strickley
...Pet. 143, 9 L.Ed. 1033; Ballance v. Forsyth, 21 How. 389, 16 L.Ed. 143; Walker v. Dreville, 12 Wall. 440, 20 L.Ed. 429; Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 278, 26 L.Ed. 447; parte Ralston, 119 U.S. 613, 7 Sup.Ct. 317, 30 L.Ed. 506, Stevens v. Clark, 62 F. 321, 323, 10 C.C.A. 379, 381. The defend......
-
Loveless v. Ransom
...204, 15 L.Ed. 803; Hodge v. Williams, 22 How. 87, 16 L.Ed. 237; Washington Co. v. Durant, 7 Wall. 694, 19 L.Ed. 164; Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 278, 26 L.Ed. 447. it may be that a citation is always required in the case of a writ of error, in which respect lies a distinction between the ......