BONDURANT, TUTRIX,
v.
WATSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A writ of error purporting to come from the Louisiana Supreme Court was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the writ was issued in the name of the state Chief Justice rather than in the name of the President of the United States as required by federal statute. The Court held that a writ of error must be issued by proper federal authority to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, and that defects in form could not be amended when the writ bore no proper federal indicia of authority whatsoever.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
We bave no jurisdiction in tbis case, as no writ of error bas ever been issued. Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355. By the ninth section of the act of May 8, 1792, c. 36 (1 Stat. 278), it was made the duty of' the clerk of this court to transmit to the clerks of the several courts the form of a writ of error approved by two of the justices of this court. This was done, and the form adopted required the writ to be issued in the name of tbe President of the United States, and have the teste of the Chief Justice of this court. Sect. 1004 of tbe Revised Statutes is as follows: —
“ Writs of error returnable to the Supreme Court may be issued as well by the clerks of the circuit courts under the seals thereof, as by the clerk of the Supreme Court. When so issued they shall be as nearly as each case may admit, agreeable to the form of a writ of error transmitted to the clerks of the several circuit courts by the clerk of the Supreme Court, in pursuance of section nine of the act of May eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-two, chapter thirty-six.”
The writ in this case was in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. It bore the teste of that Chief Justice, and was signed by the clerk, and sealed by the seal of that court. It had not a single requisite of a writ of this court. Had it been even colorably issued from this court, it might have been amended under sect. 1005 of the Revised Statutes, which is certainly very liberal, and as follows : —
“ The Supreme Court may, at any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it may deem just, allow an amendment of a writ of error, when there is a mistake in the teste of the writ, or a seal to the writ is wanting, or when the writ is made returnable on a day other than the day of the commencement of the term next ensuing the issue of the writ, or when the statement of the title of the action or parties thereto in the writ is defective, if the defect can be remedied by reference to the accompanying record, and in all other particulars of form: Provided the effect has not prejudiced, and the amendment will not injure, the defendant in error.”
But here there is nothing which even purports, to be a writ from this court, and there is, therefore, nothing to amend. If we should permit the parties to change the seal, or the title, or to do everything else which this section allows, there would still be no writ, for nothing has been done either in the name of the President or under the authority of the United States. The Supreme Court of the State has directed that its record be certified here for examination and review, but no writ to that effect either in form or substance has ever issued from this court. As such a writ is necessary to our jurisdiction, the suit is
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
The Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hartley, 92 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1926)…41 Fla. 508, 26 South. Rep. 704; Anderson v. State, 73 Fla. 86, 74 South. Rep. 6. When a purported writ of error is not even colorably the writ of the court to which it is returnable, it is not amendable and will be dismissed. Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 278. Writs of error may be amended' as to parties and a& to formal defects upon due application. West v. Johnson, 66 Fla. 4, 62 South. Rep. 913; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kirk, 111 U. S. 486, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 500; Long v. Farmers’ State Bank, supra. The En…
-
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1894)…de to dismiss the writ of error in this case upon the ground that it was issued and signed by the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, and was, therefore, insufficient to give this court jurisdiction, and the case of Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 278, is cited as authority for the position. In that case, however, the writ ran in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State, to the clerk of that court, was tested in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Stat…
-
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Quinn, 419 F.2d 1014 (7th Cir. 1969)…it, count four of the Counterclaim, because Federal did not remove the entire state court case but only his Counterclaim. Under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, only independent suits are removable.3 Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 281, 26 L.Ed. 447 (1880); First National Bank v. Turnbull, 83 190, 16 Wall. 190, 21 L.Ed. 296 (1873); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 309 F. 2d 395 (5th Cir. 1962); Nowell v. Nowell, 272 F.Supp. 298 (D.Conn.1967). A supplementary proceeding, a proceeding which is substantially…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355 (U.S. 1867)