Warfield v. Chaffe Et Al
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Citation | 91 U.S. 690,23 L.Ed. 383 |
| Parties | WARFIELD v. CHAFFE ET AL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
Messrs. Durant and Hornor for the defendant in error, in support of the motion.
Mr. W. J. Q. Baker for the plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.
This action was commenced in the Fourteenth District Court in and for the Parish of Ouachita, La., to recover the amount due upon a note made by Mrs. Warfield, the plaintiff in error, to W. J. Q. Baker, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs below,—John Chaffe & Brother,—and also to enforce a vendor's privilege. Judgment was asked for the amount claimed to be due upon the note, and also for 'fifteen dollars costs of stamping.' Attached to the petition was a copy of the note, bearing date May 3, 1867; below which was the following: —
Mrs. Warfield answered the petition; and, among other defences, she insisted that there were not any revenue-stamps on the note when it went into the hands of the plaintiffs, and that they had no authority to put stamps upon it. She thus, by the pleadings, tendered an issue of fact.
The principal contest between the parties was as to the plaintiffs' title to the note; and W. J. Q. Baker was permitted to intervene in his own behalf, and to insist that he was the owner.
At the trial in the District Court, no question as to the stamping of the note appears to have been presented or decided: certainly no testimony was offered on either side in respect to it. All the testimony in the case appears to be incorporated in the record. Judgment having been given against Mrs. Warfield and Baker in the District Court, they each appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed in July, 1874. In the opinion of the court, which comes here as part of the record, the only reference to the question of stamps which appears is as follows: 'The objection that the note was not stamped, not having been made when it was received in evidence, cannot now be considered.'
In the petition presented to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State for the allowance of this writ, it is stated, for the first time in the case, that the defendant, Mrs. Warfield, claimed the privilege, right, and immunity of being relieved and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neil v. State of Vermont
...or to any right claimed under it. Farney v. Towle, 1 Black, 350; Day v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 97; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Warfield v. Chaffe, 91 U. S. 690; Susquehanna Boom Co. v. West Branch Boom Co., 110 U. S. 57, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 438; Clark v. Pennsylvania, 128 U. S. 395, 9 Sup. Ct. R......
-
King v. McLean Asylum of the Massachusetts General Hospital, 95.
...light. We are not aware of any practice or precedent which would justify this method of making good this ommission, and Warfield v. Chaffe, 91 U.S. 690, and Clark Com., 128 U.S. 395, 9 Sup.Ct. 2, 113, seem to the contrary. Indeed, for aught that appears, the petitioner-- and in this connect......
-
Leeper v. State of Texas
...is taken. Manning v. French, 133 U. S. 186, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 258; Clark v. Pennsylvania, 128 U. S. 395, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2, 113; Warfield v. Chaffee, 91 U. S. 690; Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52, ante, 235. That to give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court under sect......
-
University v. People
...disclosed by the record and proceedings as sent here from the State court, otherwise jurisdiction will not be entertained. Warfield v. Chaffe et al., 91 U. S. 690; Murray v. Charleston, 96 id. 432; Moore v. Mississippi, 21 Wall. 636; Smith v. Adsit, 23 id. 368; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 id. ......