Sliver v. Shelback
| Decision Date | 01 April 1786 |
| Citation | 1 U.S. 165,1 L.Ed. 84,1 Dall. 165 |
| Parties | Sliver, Plaintiff in Err. v. Shelback No. ____ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a question on a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, against the plaintiff in error, when within age. The record of the Court below, stated, that the defendant (now plaintiff) appeared in person, imparled to the next term, and then appeared and said nothing; wherefore, &c. The plaintiff attained his full age before he brought the writ of error.
Levy, for the plaintiff in error, cited 8 Mod. 185. Rep. imp. Hardw. 104. 376. 1 Bl.Com. 465. Cro. El. 569. 818. Lill.Ent. 252. 3. Bac. Abr. 149. But, as his arguments were afterwards admitted, and repeated by the Court, it is unnecessary to insert them here.
Lewis, for the defendant in error. Infancy must be tried by inspection, 3. Bl. Com. 331. By the record it is stated, that the plaintiff in error appeared twice; and the Court might then have tried the question of infancy by inspection, if he had suggested it; so that he is not at this time entitled to be relieved, 3 Bac. Abr. 124. 134. 3 Bl. Com. 331. In all judicial process, the error must be reversed before 21 years are attained for what is done in Court, though not for what is done in pais; as in the latter case, a different mode for the trial of infancy is adopted, to wit, an inquest. 3 Bac. Abr. 134. 5.6. and that may be done either within, or, at full age. 9. Vin. 377. Co. Litt. 280.
By M'Kean, Chief Justice.
Nil dicit is not a judicial act; but cognovit actionem would have been so.
Lewis. True; but the giving judgment upon Nil dicit is a judicial act; and when he says nothing, there is the greater reason for the inspection of his age, in order to protect him, who evidently knows not how to protect himself. But how can the Court ascertain the truth of what is alledged? Not by the verdict of a jury, for this is a judicial act; nor by the inspection of the party for he has now attained his full age; it can only be done by the record.
Lewis admitted, however, upon a question being put to him, that by the rejoinder in error, the infancy, which was assigned for error, was acknowledged; but he relied upon the impossibility of obtaining relief for a judicial act done diens atatem, by a writ of error post plenam atatem.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, in substance as follows:
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
At the common law there could be no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adam Roth Grocery Co. v. Hopkins
... ... Angevine, 7 Hun, 679; Bryant v. Pottinger, 6 ... Bush, 473; Clemson v. Bush, 3 Bin. 413; ... Campbell v. Wilson, 23 Tex. 252; and Sliver v ... Shelback, 1 Dall. 165. We thought the doctrine sound, ... and the authority respectable. We trust that, with this ... explanation, counsel ... ...
-
Powell v. Gott
...question as now presented was before the court, and the objection urged below was not suggested, either by counsel or court. In Slian v. Shelbach, 1 Dall. 165,and Moore v. McEwen, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 373, this objection was urged but overruled, and the distinction above insisted on, recognized......
-
McMurray's Heirs v. The City of Erie
...to enter the judgment. In general it is settled that on a writ of error, error of fact as well as error of law may be assigned: Silver v. Shelback, 1 Dall. 165; Moore v. McEwen, 5 S. & R. 373; Martin v. Tors, 17 S. & R. 364; Knox v. Flack, 10 Harris 338; Banning v. Taylor, 12 Harris 292. Ho......
-
Bower v. Town
...that proceeding: 7 Barb. 656; 12 Barb. 265. In Pennsylvania it is heard on motion, and the alleged facts are controverted by affidavits: 1 Dall. 165; 2 Yeates 277. So New Jersey: 1 Green 250; 1 Green 131; 3 Harr. 287. So in Maryland: 3 H. & McH., 535. So in South Carolina: 2 Nott & McC., 13......