Chappell v. Bradshaw
Decision Date | 29 October 1888 |
Parties | CHAPPELL v. BRADSHAW |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. A. Hammond and B. Howard Haman, for the motion.
W. A. Fisher and Thos. C. Chappell, in pro. per. contra.
Bradshaw recovered judgment December 6, 1887, against Chappell in the circuit court for Howard county, Md., in an action of trespass on the case, after a trial by jury upon a plea of not guilty, for damages by fire to his (Bradshaw's) schooner, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of Chappell's servants in cutting a burning scow or lighter loose from Chappell's wharf, and allowing it to drift against Bradshaw's vessel. From this judgment Chappell prosecuted an appeal to the court of appeals of Maryland, by which tribunal the judgment was affirmed on the 14th day of March, 1888. On the 27th of March Chappell moved for a rehearing, upon the ground, which had not been up to that time presented in any form, that the circuit court for Howard county should have limited the measure of damages to the value of the scow which occasioned the injury complained of, under the provisions of section 18, c. 121, act Cong. June 26, 1884, (23 St. at Large, 57.) The court of appeals overruled the motion, because, as the court states, 'this act of congress was not before the circuit court when the case was tried, nor before this court on appeal, and that no reference to it or construction of it was made in either court.' After an unsuccessful application therefor to the chief judge of the court of appeals, a writ of error was finally allowed by one of the justices of this court, and now comes before us upon a motion to dismiss.
To give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, because of the denial by a state court of any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the constitution or any treaty or statute of the United States, it must appear on the record that such title, right, privilege, or immunity was 'specially set up or claimed,' at the proper time, in the proper way. 'To be reviewable here,' says WAITE, C. J., in Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21, 22, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc.
-
Maziar v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr.
...at 768–69, 287 P.3d 551. ¶ 15 In 1889, admiralty jurisdiction was governed by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U.S. 132, 134, 9 S.Ct. 40, 32 L.Ed. 369 (1888). The Act stated, in relevant part, “[T]he district courts shall have ... exclusive original cognizance of all civ......
- Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Intern.
-
A.B. Moss & Bro. v. Ramey
... ... court is concerned. (Ex parte Spies, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct ... 21, 31 L.Ed. 80; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U.S. 132, ... 9 S.Ct. 40, 32 L.Ed. 369; Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas ... P. Ry. Co. v. Slade, 216 U.S. 78, 20 S.Ct. 230, 54 ... ...