THE STATE, RUCKMAN PROSECUTOR,
v.
DEMAREST, COLLECTOR
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 Pennsylvania state official obtained a judgment in New Jersey's Court of Errors and Appeals against a township collector in 1806, then sued out a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court but never docketed the case before his death in 1882, followed by the defendant's death in 1883. The Supreme Court held that the writ of error had become inoperative due to lack of prosecution long before the parties' deaths, and accordingly abated the suit, leaving it to the representatives of the interested parties to proceed as appropriate.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered tbe opinion of the court.
This is a motion by Cornebus N. Durie, tbe successor in office of Demarest, tbe defendant in error, to docket and dismiss a case. From the motion papers it appears that Demarest, as collector of tbe township, recovered a judgment against the State, Ruckman prosecutor, in tbe Court of Errors and Appeals of-Ñew Jersey, on the 11th of July, 1806, and that Ruckman sued out a writ of error from this court, gave bond and had citation signed, but never docketed the case here. Ruckman died on the 5th of November, 1882, and Demurest in the summer of 1883.
Upon these facts it is clear that the writ of error had become inoperative for want of prosecution long before it abated, by the death of the parties. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505, and cases there cited. The exact date when the writ was sued out is not stated, but if it had been delayed until five years after the judgment, there was no time within ten years before the death of Ruckman that he would have been allowed to docket the case in this court, since that could only be done during the term to which the writ was returnable. It seems to us proper, therefore, to declare the suit abated by the death of the parties, and leave the representatives of those in interest to proceed accordingly. An order to that'effect hay be entered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Credit Co. Ltd. v. Ark. Cent. Ry. Co., 128 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1888)…d cannofr avail the appellants. Brooks v. Norris, 11 How. 203, 207; Steamer Virginia, 19 How. 182; Castro v. United States, 3 Wall. 46; Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355; Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505; The Tornado, 109 U. S. 110; State v. Demarest, 110 U. S. 400 ; Killian v. Clark, 111 U. S. 784. On the 22d day of January, 1885, exactly two years after the entry of the decree, a petition for an appeal was presented by the solicitor of the complainant to Mr. Justice Miller, and allowed by him. At the same t…
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36. In ejectment against two defendants for two parcels of land, if each defendant claims only one parcel, the value of each parcel is the limit of appellate jurisdiction. Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398; Lynch v. Bailey, 110 U. S. 400. But if both defendants jointly claim both parcels, the value of both is the test. Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797. In Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276, where, in an action against heirs upon a debt of their ancestor, separate judgments wer…
-
Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1889)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1878)