Wurts v. Hoagland Iron Company v. Hoagland
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BRADLEY |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 701,26 L.Ed. 1109 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Parties | WURTS v. HOAGLAND. IRON COMPANY v. HOAGLAND |
RULE to show cause why an attachment should not issue against the defendant in error, for having sued out executions upon the judgments below after supersedeas bonds in due form and approved security had been filed within the prescribed time.
Mr. Theodore Little in support of the rule.
Mr. Jehiel G. Shipman, contra.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
The controversy in these cases arose out of an assessment of benefits for the drainage of lands in New Jersey. It was decided by the Supreme Court of that State, Dec. 1, 1880. The Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the judgment on the 18th of July, 1881, and the record was remitted Aug. 31, 1881. On receiving the remittitur on that day, the Supreme Court entered a rule ordering it to be filed and the cause to be proceeded with according to law. Writs of error from this court to the Supreme Court of New Jersey were allowed and bonds approved Oct. 27, 1881, and on the following day were filed in the clerk's office of the latter court. The writs of error were properly directed to the Supreme Court, because at that time
Page 702
the record had been transmitted to it, and was then in its possession. See Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 148. But at any time before the remittitur the writs might have been directed to the Court of Errors and Appeals, because the judgment of that court was the final judgment in the cause, and until the remittitur was made it had possession of the record in contemplation of law. It is that judgment which is the subject of revision here. The plaintiff in error insists that the action of the Supreme Court, on receiving the remittitur, was the final judgment. But this is not correct. Such action was not necessary to the jurisdiction of this court. A number of instances might be cited in which, without any remittitur, a writ of error from this court has been directed to the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. This was the course in the noted cases of State of New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company, 1 Wall. 116; and New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104.
In those States where the highest court does not have possession of the record, and does not render a judgment, but decides questions certified by the inferior courts, and merely issues a rescript directing the latter what judgment to render, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Powers
...As distinguishing the Massachusetts and New York cases, see Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U.S. 143, 23 L.Ed. 265; Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland, 105 U.S. 701, 26 L.Ed. 1109. So it is that it has always been the practice in taking cases to the Supreme Court of the United Stated from Kentucky, after th......
-
Cresap v. Cresap
...of such judgment, decree, or order. Rev. St. U. S. 1878, § 1008 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 715]. In the case of Iron Co. v. Hoagland, 105 U. S. 701, 26 L. Ed. 1109, decided at its October term, 1881, under the statute above cited the court held that "the time within which a writ of error mus......
-
Swift v. Calnan
...Cooley, Const. Lim. (1st Ed.), 534; Hoagland v. Wurts, 41 J. J. L. 175; Coster v. Tide Water Co., 18 N.J.Eq. 68; Wurts v. Hoagland, 105 U.S. 701, 26 L.Ed. 1109; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 28 L.Ed. 923; State, Brittin v. Blake, 36 N.J.L. 442. It is quite possible that, in any state in......
-
Bruce Shanks v. Delaware, Lackwanna Western Railroad Company, No. 477
...the supreme court because the record was then in its possession. See Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 23 L. ed. 265; Wurts v. Hoagland, 105 U. S. 701, 26 L. ed. 1109; Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197, 59 L. ed. 193, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57. In so far as its words are material here, the ......
-
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Powers
...As distinguishing the Massachusetts and New York cases, see Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U.S. 143, 23 L.Ed. 265; Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland, 105 U.S. 701, 26 L.Ed. 1109. So it is that it has always been the practice in taking cases to the Supreme Court of the United Stated from Kentucky, after th......
-
Cresap v. Cresap
...of such judgment, decree, or order. Rev. St. U. S. 1878, § 1008 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 715]. In the case of Iron Co. v. Hoagland, 105 U. S. 701, 26 L. Ed. 1109, decided at its October term, 1881, under the statute above cited the court held that "the time within which a writ of error mus......
-
Swift v. Calnan
...Cooley, Const. Lim. (1st Ed.), 534; Hoagland v. Wurts, 41 J. J. L. 175; Coster v. Tide Water Co., 18 N.J.Eq. 68; Wurts v. Hoagland, 105 U.S. 701, 26 L.Ed. 1109; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 28 L.Ed. 923; State, Brittin v. Blake, 36 N.J.L. 442. It is quite possible that, in any state in......
-
Bruce Shanks v. Delaware, Lackwanna Western Railroad Company, No. 477
...the supreme court because the record was then in its possession. See Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, 23 L. ed. 265; Wurts v. Hoagland, 105 U. S. 701, 26 L. ed. 1109; Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197, 59 L. ed. 193, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57. In so far as its words are material here, the ......