HARRINGTON & ANOTHER
v.
HOLLER
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.
The Supreme Court held that a territorial court's dismissal of a writ of error for failure to file a transcript within the required time is not a "final judgment" reviewable by writ of error to the Supreme Court, but rather a procedural refusal to hear the case that must be addressed through mandamus if relief is sought.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion is granted on the-authority of Insurance Company v. Comstock,Wall. 258, and Railroad Company v.Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. An order of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory dismissing a writ of error to a District Court, because of the failure of-the plaintiff in error to file the transcript and have the cause docketed within the time required by law, is not'a final judgment or a final decision within the meaning of those terms as used in sections 702 and 1911 of the Revised Statutes regulating writs of error and appeals to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory. Section 702 provides for the review of final judgments and decrees by writ of error or appeal, and section 1911 regulates the mode and manner of taking the writ or procuring the alio wane of the appeal. The use of the term “ final decisions ” in section 1911 does not enlarge the' scope of the jurisdiction of this court. It is only a substitute for the words “ final judgments and decrees ” in section 702, and means the same thing.
The dismissal of the writ was a refusal to hear and decide the cause. The remedy in such a case, if any, is by mandamus to compel the court to entertain the case and proceed to its determination, not by writ of error to review what has been done. Ex parte. Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 647; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 165.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Point Conversions, LLC. v. Pfeffer & Marin Holdings, LLC. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…of the jurisdiction of this court in mandamus according to the principles and practice applicable thereto. That writ properly lies in cases where the inferior court refuses to take jurisdiction where by law it ought so to do.”); Crawford v. Haller, 111 U.S. 796, 797, 4 S. Ct. 697, 697, 28 L. Ed. 602 (1884) (“The dismissal of the writ was a refusal to hear and decide the cause. The remedy in such a case, if any, is by mandamus to compel the court to entertain the case and proceed to its determination, not b…1 / 2
-
In re Pa. Co., 137 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1890)…tes v. Gomez, 3 Wall. 752; Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384; Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699, 702; Ins. Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 271; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507; Ex [*453] parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796; Ex parte Brown, 116 U. S. 401; Ex parte Parker, 120 U. S. 737; Ex parte Hollon Parker, 131 U. S. 221. It is true that after a case has proceeded to the filing of a declaration and a plea to the jurisdiction, or its equivalent, and a judgment is re…
-
United States ex rel. Redfield v. Windom, 137 U.S. 636 (U.S. 1891)…son, 6 How. 92, 101; Goodrich v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284; Ex parte De Groot, 6 Wall. 497; Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50; Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347; United States v. Seaman, 17 How. 225, 230; Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634; Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796; Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 290; United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 394, 395; Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50; United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U. S. 40. [*644] That principle is that the writ of mandamus may ' issue where the d…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.R. Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 (U.S. 1874)