Wurts v. Hoagland Iron Company v. Hoagland
Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
Citation | Wurts v. Hoagland Iron Company v. Hoagland, 105 U.S. 701, 26 L.Ed. 1109 (1881) |
Parties | WURTS v. HOAGLAND. IRON COMPANY v. HOAGLAND |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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.
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 the record had been transmitted to it, and was then in its possession.SeeAtherton 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;andNew 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 case would perhaps be...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Swift v. Calnan
...might, as a new question, doubt its constitutionality. This idea is sustained by the highest authority and the weight of reason. 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. State, Brittin v. Blake, 36 N.J.L. 442. It is quite possible that, in any state in which this question would be entirely a new one, and where it would not... -
Bruce Shanks v. Delaware, Lackwanna Western Railroad Company
...review of the judgment of the court of appeals he sued out this writ of error, which was directed to 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. In so far as its words are material here, the employers' liability act declares that 'every common carrier by railroad while engaging... -
Wurts v. Hoagland
...the court of errors was the final judgment in the case, and this writ of error was addressed to the supreme court, because at the time of suing out the writ of error the record had been transmitted to that court, and was in its possession.
105 U. S. 701. The error assigned was that 'the act of March 8, 1871, upon which the said judgment and proceedings are founded, violates the constitution of the United States in this, that it deprives the plaintiffs in error of their property without... -
Cresap v. Cresap
...error or appeal unless the writ of error is brought or the appeal taken within two years after the entry 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 cited the court held that "the time within which a writ of error must be served, in order that it may operate as a supersedeas, must be computed from the date of the judgment...