McKee v. Brooks

Decision Date02 June 1885
Docket NumberCase No. 5558.
Citation64 Tex. 255
PartiesJAS. A. MCKEE ET AL. v. TAM BROOKS.
CourtTexas Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from Hill. Tried below before the Hon. J. M. Hall.

The appellee, plaintiff below, sued for the value of certain merchandise alleged to have been seized and converted by the appellant, McKee, acting as United States marshal for the northern district of Texas, and against the other defendants as sureties upon his official bond. Service was perfected to the March term, 1885. On February 26, 1885, defendants filed their petition for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Texas, on the ground that the cause was one arising under the laws of the United States, and with it the proper bond. On March 7, 1885, the district court overruled the application to remove, and no other appearance or answer being made or filed, judgment was rendered against defendants for $2,519.77.

Field & Johnson and Robertson & Coke, for appellants, cited: Acts of Congress of March 3, 1875, secs. 32-3; Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S., 421; R. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S., 141; 19 Fed. R., 561; 8 Fed. R., 724; 22 Fed. R., 801; 1 McCrary, 598;4 Dill., 242; 16 Fed. R., 706.

Jo Abbott, B. D. Tarlton and A. P. McKinnon, for appellee, cited: Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall., 335, especially that part on pages 343 and 344; McKee v. Raines, 10 Wall., 22; Phillips v. Edelstein, Willson's Appeal Cases, vol. 2, part 1 to 4, page 394, § 449; Desty on Removals, 200.

WILLIE, CHIEF JUSTICE.

It is apparent from the petition for removal, taken in connection with the pleadings of the plaintiff below, that this suit is upon the official bond of a United States marshal, and is based upon articles 783 and 784 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The trespass is alleged to have been committed by McKee, as United States marshal, and to have been one for which the sureties upon his bond as such marshal were liable. To determine whether or not a marshal gives an official bond, and, if so, as to the conditions of that bond for the performance of which he and his sureties bind themselves, we must resort to article 783 of the United States Revised Statutes. To ascertain whether or not a party aggrieved by a breach of any of the conditions of said bond may recover damages against the marshal and his sureties, and the extent to which damages may be allowed, we must resort to the next article of the same statutes. It is clear that without some provisions to that effect in the laws of the United States, no recovery could be had against the parties sued as sureties in this case for the trespasses laid to the charge of the United States marshal. In determining, therefore, the right of the plaintiff to recover, the court below would have been compelled to construe the two above named articles at least, if not others which follow them in the same connection.

The only question therefore is: Is a suit which cannot be prosecuted, defended or determined without a resort to these articles of the Revised Statutes, and a construction of them, a suit arising under the laws of the United States? It is not necessary or proper for us to consider this as an original question, or to state what would have been our decision had it never been adjudicated by a court having final appellate jurisdiction of such matters. Upon such questions it is now conceded that the supreme court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction upon a writ of error from this court, and its decisions upon them are therefore binding upon us.

In the case of Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S., 421, that court held that an action...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, B-7239
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 23, 1979
    ...Indemnity Co., 146 Tex. 496, 208 S.W.2d 884 (1948); Gutierrez v. El Paso & N. E. R. Co., 102 Tex. 378, 117 S.W. 426 (1909); McKee v. Brooks, 64 Tex. 255 (1885). In Emmons we said that this court was controlled in the construction of federal laws by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the ......
  • Trahan v. Trahan, C-106
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • November 18, 1981
    ...Pacific Indem. Co., 146 Tex. 496, 208 S.W.2d 884 (1948); Gutierrez v. El Paso & NE. R.R., 102 Tex. 378, 117 S.W. 426 (1909); McKee v. Brooks, 64 Tex. 255 (1885). In Eichelberger we reiterated that this Court is controlled in the construction of federal laws by the decisions of the United St......
  • Henderson v. Cabell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 1, 1892
    ...a rule of limitation different from that which obtains in this state. Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S. 421, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; McKee v. Brooks, 64 Tex. 255. See, also, McKee v. Coffin, 66 Tex. 304, 1 S. W. Rep. 276. It would seem that, at least under the latest enactments upon the subject ......
  • M'Kee v. Coffin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 6, 1886
    ...court to a federal court. Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S. 421; S. C. 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289. The same ruling, in effect, was made in McKee v. Brooks, 64 Tex. 255. The case before us, however, presents no such question; but presents the simple question whether, in a suit brought against a perso......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT