John Hunt, Plaintiff In Error v. Palao, Defendants
| Decision Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Citation | 4 How. 589,11 L.Ed. 1115,45 U.S. 589 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN HUNT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. J. & M. PALAO, DEFENDANTS |
THIS was a motion made to bring up the record in the above case, which had been decided by the Territorial Court of Appeals of Florida previously to the admission of Florida as a State.
The motion was as follows: ——
'Mr. Westcott, in behalf of John Hunt, submitted to the court a certified copy of the record of the opinion of said Court of Appeals, and of said judgment in said case, and suggested to the court that said Court of Appeals was defunct by the admission of the Territory of Florida as a State, on the 4th of March last, and that all the records and papers of said Court of Appeals, and the record aforesaid in said case, had been placed, by the act of the General Assembly of the said State, in the custody and keeping of the clerk of the Supreme Court of said State, and also that said case was a case of Federal jurisdiction; and he moved this court to allow a writ of error to remove said record and judgment into this court, with directions to the clerk of this court to direct the same to the judges of said Supreme Court of said State, and to the clerk aforesaid having the custody of said record as aforesaid, in order that said record and judgment may be certified to this court, and a return to said writ of error made by said clerk of said Supreme Court of said State.'
A motion has been made for process from this court to bring here for revision the record and proceedings of the late Territorial Court of Appeals of Florida, in the case of Hunt v. The Lessee of M. & S. Palao, in which judgment was rendered in favor of the latter, at February term, 1844.
Since Florida ceased to be a Territory and became a State, a law has been passed by the State, directing the records and papers of the above-mentioned Territorial Court to be placed in the custody of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the State; and under this law, the record in the case in question is now in his possession for safe keeping.
As Congress has made no special provision for a case of this kind, the appellate power of this court, if exercised at all, must be exercised in the manner prescribed by the general laws of Congress upon that subject. Under the act of 1832, writs of error to the Territorial Court of Appeals were to be prosecuted according to the provisions and regulations of the twenty-fifth sectio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higgins v. Brown
... ... killed one John Hancock in such a manner as to constitute the ... error could have been sued out or appeals could have ... 217, 51 Am. Dec ... 75, the defendants were indicted for a public offense in ... 1843, ... being therein, and the plaintiff is entitled to prosecute in ... this state, ... 85, 15 S.Ct. 16, 39 ... L.Ed. 76; Hunt v. Palo, 4 How. (U. S.) 589, 11 L.Ed ... 1115; ... ...
-
Higgins v. Brown
...White v. Berry, 171 U.S. 366, 18 S. Ct. 917, 43 L. Ed. 199; United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76, 15 S. Ct. 16, 39 L. Ed. 76; Hunt v. Palao, 4 HOW 589, 11 L. Ed. 1115; Webster v. Reid, 11 HOW 437, 13 L. Ed. 761; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. (U.S.) 160, 17 L. Ed. 922; Express Co v. Kountze, 8 Wal......
-
Campbell v. Coulston
...case at bar. The opinion in the case of Hunt v. Palao was explained in the Benner case, where it was held that the objections raised in the Palao case were removed subsequent acts of Congress, and it was stated that, the territorial courts being the courts of the general government, the rec......
-
Campbell v. Coulston
...the creatures of the sovereign power of the state. Such is the express holding of the United States Supreme Court in Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589, 590, 11 L. Ed. 1115, and Benner v. Porter, 9 How, 235, 13 L. Ed. 119. In the former case it was said: “A state law could not validly declare the re......