Hodges v. Snyder, No. 432
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | SANFORD |
| Citation | 43 S.Ct. 435,67 L.Ed. 819,261 U.S. 600 |
| Parties | HODGES et al. v. SNYDER et al |
| Docket Number | No. 432 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1923 |
v.
SNYDER et al.
Submitted on Motion to Dismiss or Affirm Feb. 26, 1923.
Mr. Samuel Herrick, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Max Royhl and T. H. Null, both of Huron, S. D., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendants in error move to dismiss the writ of error or affirm the judgment.
Page 601
1. The ground of the motion to dismiss is that there is want of jurisdiction because the writ is not directed to the Supreme Court of the State. It was sued out to review a final judgment of that court reversing, on appeal, an order of the Circuit Court, and remanding the cause with direction to vacate the same. Under the local practice the original papers, that had been transmitted to the Supreme Court as the record on the appeal, were remitted to the Circuit Court, with copies of the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court (Rev. Code S. D. 1919, § 3170); no copy of such record being retained by the Supreme Court. The rule of practice has been long established that in such case, in order to bring up the record which is essential to a review of the judgment of the appellate court, the writ of error is properly directed to the lower court in which the record is then found. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, 304, 335, 4 L. Ed. 381; McGuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 382, 386, 18 L. Ed. 164; Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 148, 23 L. Ed. 265; Polleys v. Black River Co., 113 U. S. 81, 82, 5 Sup. Ct. 369, 28 L. Ed. 938; McDonald v. Massachusetts, 1 0 U. S. 311, 312, 21 Sup. Ct. 389, 45 L. Ed. 542; Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197, 200, 35 Sup. Ct. 57, 59 L. Ed. 193 (involving a similar writ of error to another circuit court of South Dakota); and other cases therein cited. Hence the motion to dismiss is denied.
2. The ground of the alternative motion to affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court is that the writ was taken for delay only and presents no substantial question for review. It should be granted if the questions on which the decision depends are so wanting in substance as not to need further argument. Rule 6, § 5 (32 Sup. Ct. v); Missouri Pacific Railway v. Castle, 224 U. S. 541, 544, 32 Sup. Ct. 606, 56 L. Ed. 875; Chicago Railway v. Devine, 239 U. S. 52, 54, 36 Sup. Ct. 27, 60 L. Ed. 140; City of Boston v. Jackson, 260 U. S. 309, 43 Sup. Ct. 129, 67 L. Ed. ——, decided by this Court December 4, 1922.
A single question is presented, which arises as follows: The plaintiffs in error, as resident taxpayers, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court challenging the validity of a consolidated school district which had been organized by
Page 602
the merger of several smaller districts, and praying that the defendants in error, as its officers, be enjoined from further maintaining schools or erecting school buildings therein, or issuing bonds thereof. The Supreme Court, on an appeal from the Circuit Court, held that the attempted organization of the consolidated district 'was not authorized by any law then in force * * * and was wholly futile' (43 S. D. 166, 176, 178 N. W. 575), and entered judgment remanding the cause for further proceedings in accordance with its decision. The legislature thereupon passed a curative act legalizing and validating all proceedings relating to the organization of any consolidated school district attempted to be made as this had been, as of the date when such district was organized (Laws S. D. 2d Sp. Sess. 1920, c. 47). Before this curative act went into effect the Circuit Court, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, entered judgment adjudging the invalidity of the consolidation, permanently enjoining the defendants from conducting the consolidated district, as prayed in the complaint, and awarding costs to the plaintiffs. At a later day of the term, after the curative act had gone into effect, a motion by the defendants to set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mandel v. Myers, S.F. 24217
...but it may not reverse a judgment in a case already decided. (Pryor v. Downey (1875) 50 Cal. 388, 408; Hodges v. Snyder (1923) 261 U.S. 600, 603, 43 S.Ct. 435, 436, 67 L.Ed. 819; Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, supra, 634 F.2d at p. 431.) In addition, the Legislature may r......
-
Mendly v. County of Los Angeles, No. B073226
...because the subsequent legislation had eliminated the need for the injunction. (Id. at pp. 435-436....) In Hodges v. Snyder (1923) 261 U.S. 600, 603-604 [43 S.Ct. 435, 436, 67 L.Ed. 819] ..., the court held that subsequent legislation could annul an injunction against the consolidation of a......
-
Biodiversity Associates v. Cables, No. 03-1002.
...could not only modify injunctive relief already granted, but also could "g[i]ve the rule of decision" in pending cases); Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603, 43 S.Ct. 435, 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923) (noting that the normal rule against disturbing final judgments "does not apply to a suit brought f......
-
De Rodulfa v. United States, No. 22947
...14, supra, and accompanying text. 59 74 App.D.C. at 215-216, 122 F.2d at 208-209. 60 Id. at 216, 122 F.2d at 209. 61 See Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603-604, 43 S.Ct. 435, 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923); McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 123-124, 19 S.Ct. 134, 43 L.Ed. 382 (1898); Gray v. Chi......
-
Mandel v. Myers, S.F. 24217
...but it may not reverse a judgment in a case already decided. (Pryor v. Downey (1875) 50 Cal. 388, 408; Hodges v. Snyder (1923) 261 U.S. 600, 603, 43 S.Ct. 435, 436, 67 L.Ed. 819; Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, supra, 634 F.2d at p. 431.) In addition, the Legislature may r......
-
Mendly v. County of Los Angeles, No. B073226
...because the subsequent legislation had eliminated the need for the injunction. (Id. at pp. 435-436....) In Hodges v. Snyder (1923) 261 U.S. 600, 603-604 [43 S.Ct. 435, 436, 67 L.Ed. 819] ..., the court held that subsequent legislation could annul an injunction against the consolidation of a......
-
Taylor v. U.S., Nos. 97-16069
...rights distinction in the context of Congress' power to assign certain controversies to non-Article III tribunals); Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603-04, 43 S. Ct. 435, 436-37, 67 L. Ed. 819 (1923) (analyzing the distinction in the context of due process and vested rights). Moreover, even......
-
In re Marriage of Duggan, No. 2-06-0061.
...entitles the judgement creditor to the same constitutional protections afforded other forms of property. See, e.g., Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600, 603, 43 S.Ct. 435, 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923) (`the private rights of parties which have been vested by the judgment of a court cannot be taken away b......