Hodge, John Hunter, Haywood Hunter, Thomas Coleman, and Young Coleman, Plaintiffs In Error v. John Williams
| Decision Date | 01 December 1859 |
| Citation | 63 U.S. 87,16 L.Ed. 237,22 How. 87 |
| Parties | J. W. HODGE, JOHN W. HUNTER, HAYWOOD HUNTER, THOMAS COLEMAN, AND YOUNG COLEMAN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN A. WILLIAMS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas.
Mr. Hughes, of counsel for John A. Williams, suggested that the judgment of the said District Court was in fact against his client; and that, after said judgment, the said Williams filed his assignment of errors, and applied for a writ of error; and that by a clerical mistake the said Williams was made defendant in error, and J. W. Hodge, John W. Hunter, Haywood Hunter, Thomas Coleman, and Young Coleman, plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Hughes then moved the court to amend the said writ of error, or that the said writ of error, by reason of said clerical mistake, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It appears, from the record in this case, that an action was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas, by John A. Williams, against Hodge and the other defendants named in the proceedings, and at the trial, the judgment was against the plaintiff.
The writ of error removing the case to this court is in the name of the defendants who succeeded in the court below and do not desire to disturb the judgment; and the plaintiff in that court, who alleges error in the judgment, and seeks to reverse it, is made the defendant in the writ of error.
It is evident that the writ was intended to be sued out by the plaintiff in the court below, and that the names of the defendants, as plaintiffs in the writ, were used without their authority; for the errors are assigned by the plaintiff, and the bond states that a writ of error has been sued out by him, and the citation issued by the judge is directed to the defendants, and served on their counsel. And it is obvious that the writ in the name of the defendants was an oversight of the clerk by whom it was issued.
But the amendment proposed cannot be made here. An amendment presupposes jurisdiction of the case. And this court have no appellate power over the judgment of the court below, unless the judgment is brought here according to the act of Congress—that is, by writ of error; and that writ, from its nature and character, must be sued out by the party who alleges error in the judgment of the inferior court. This writ is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loveless v. Ransom
...served on the clerk of the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed. Carroll v. Dorsey, 20 How. 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. Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 278, 26 L.Ed. 447. And it may be that a citation......
-
McMichael v. United States, 661.
...the jurisdiction of this court and was but a nullity. "An amendment presupposes jurisdiction of the case." Hodge et al. v. Williams, 22 How. 87, 88, 63 U.S. 87, 16 L.Ed. 237. "Where the original pleading fails to disclose a cause of action * * *, it is ordinarily regarded as not amendable."......
-
Walton v. Marietta Chair Co
...counsel. And it is obvious that the writ in the name of the defendants was an oversight by the clerk by whom it was issued.' Hodge v. Williams, 22 How. 87, 88. It was also held that a writ of error or an appeal could not be amended if it described either party only as 'the heirs' of a perso......
-
Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax Dist.
...his complaint by waiving any claims for further relief. "An amendment presupposes jurisdiction of the case." Hodge v. Williams, 63 U.S. (22 How.) 87, 88, 16 L.Ed. 237 (1859). We have "no power to allow an amendment conferring jurisdiction, since that in itself would be an exercise of jurisd......