Morrison v. Watson
Decision Date | 26 May 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 177,177 |
Citation | 38 L.Ed. 927,154 U.S. 111,14 S.Ct. 995 |
Parties | MORRISON v. WATSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This action was brought by Daniel M. Morrison against John G. Watson in a court of the state of North Carolina to recover possession of certain land. The jury found a verdict for defendant, and judgment was entered thereon, which, on appeal therefrom by plaintiff, was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 7 S. E. 795, 101 N. C. 332. Plaintiff brought error.
This was an action in the nature of ejectment, brought April 11, 1883, in the superior court of Richmond county, in the state of North Carolina, to recover 100 acres of land in that county.
The case certified by that court to the supreme court of the state began as follows:
The case then stated that the plaintiff gave in evidence a deed of the land from the sheriff to himself, pursuant to a sale thereof, for the price of $40, on June 9, 1879, under an execution duly issued April 5, 1879, upon a judgment rendered May 17, 1870, against the defendant, for $35, and interest from November 13, 1864, and costs on a promissory note shown by the judgment roll to have been payable at the date last mentioned; and that the plaintiff also gave in evidence the execution, and the officer's return thereon, stating that he levied it upon this land. The case also stated that 'no homestead was ever allotted to the defendant.'
The case then stated that 'the plaintiff, for the purpose of showing that the lands of the defendant were, in June, 1879, worth less than $1,000 and the amount of the judgment,' introduced, 'after objection by defendant and exception to its admission,' evidence tending to show that fact; that the defendant also introduced evidence upon the question of the value of the land, and set forth the testimony introduced by either party; did not show that any evidence admitted was objected to by the plaintiff; and continued and concluded as follows:
The supreme court of the state, on November 12, 1888, affirmed the judgment. 101 N. C. 332, 7 S. E. 795. The plaintiff, on September 4, 1890, sued out this writ of error.
S. F. Phillips and F. D. McKenney, for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Flemming, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The ground on which it was argued in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hemphill v. New York
...157 (1905). Put simply, there must have been a "real contest ... upon" the federal claim in state court. Morrison v. Watson , 154 U.S. 111, 115, 14 S.Ct. 995, 38 L.Ed. 927 (1894) ; accord, Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 222–223, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).Here, there was no co......
-
Illinois v. Gates
...the federal exclusionary rule—suppressing evidence against respondents does not affect our conclusion. In Morrison v. Watson, 154 U.S. 111, 14 S.Ct. 995, 138 L.Ed. 927 (1894), the Court was asked to consider whether a state statute impaired the appellant's contract with the appellee. It dec......
-
McGrew v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
...v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 642; Baldwin v. Fries, 103 Mo. 286; Keller v. Ins. Co., 95 Mo.App. 639; Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535; Morrison v. Watson, 154 U.S. 111; Powell Supervisors, 150 U.S. 433; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 183; Ex parte Spies, 123 U.S. 81. Constitutional objection to the title ......
-
Moliter v. Wabash Railroad Co.
... ... Co. v. Purdy, 185 U.S. 148, 154, 46 L.Ed. 847, 22 S.Ct ... 605; Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538, 38 L.Ed ... 812, 14 S.Ct. 874; Morrison v. Watson, 154 U.S. 111, ... 115, 38 L.Ed. 927, 14 S.Ct. 995.] And it must be ... unmistakably set up or claimed and not left to ... inference ... ...