HOUSTON
v.
MOORE
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.
Houston v. Moore involved a challenge to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act to review a case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it could only exercise appellate review over final judgments from state supreme courts, and the judgment in this case was not yet final because the cause could still be determined in favor of the plaintiff in the state court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. OB. Marshall tíenrered thebpinion of the ebttrt. The appellate jurisdiction of this, court, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, ch. 20. extends only, to final j udgment or decree of the highest courts Ojf law oí equity in the cases specified. This is nut a |jaal judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania. ' ’íhe cause-may yét be finally determined in favour of the plain# Sn the state, court;
Writ of error xP . issed. .
Jun.GMEN*. This cause came on to Be Beard on th? -transcript of the record of the supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for'the Lancaster district. OnNxáminatíon Whereof, it is adjudged! aiid Ordered, that the writ of error in this cause be and the same, is hereby dismissed, this-court not haw ing jurisdiction in said causs, there not having been a final judgment in said suit, in the said supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.a
a
Costs, are not given wher e the writ of error is dismissed ' for want of jurisdiction. Inglee v. Coolidge, ante, vol. II. p. 368.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
ST. Louis v. S. Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1883)
-
The United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238 (U.S. 1835)
-
Victory Transp. Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes, 336 F.2d 354 (2d Cir. 1964)…cord indicates that the Spanish Consul was specially authorized to interpose a claim of sovereign immunity, the affidavit was plainly insufficient. The Sao Vicente, 260 U.S. 151, 43 S.Ct. 15, 67 L.Ed. 179 (1922); The Anne, 16 U.S. 435, 3 Wheat. 435, 4 L.Ed. 428 (1818); The Secundus, 13 F. 2d 469 (E.D.N.Y. 1926); Harris & Co. Adv. Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 127 So. 2d 687 (D.C.App.Fla. 1961). On appeal the Spanish Ambassador to the United States has written a letter directly to this court claiming immunity…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence