CHAPPELL CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY
v.
SULPHUR MINES COMPANY
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.
Chappell Chemical and Fertilizer Company brought a debt collection action against Sulphur Mines Company in Maryland state court, and after the case was transferred to a higher court, Chappell sought to appeal an order requiring it to employ new counsel before trial, alleging the ruling deprived it of a jury trial in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the appeal was premature—no final judgment had been rendered and no federal constitutional question was actually decided by the state court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a ivrit of error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland to revieiv a judgment made by it, and which is hereafter set out.
The action Avas at laiv for the recovery of eight thousand dollars for money payable, goods sold and work done, and materials furnished by defendants in error (plaintiffs in the court below) to plaintiff in error, (defendant in the court below,) and was brought in one of the city courts of Baltimore, Maryland. To the declaration a plea was filed February 12, 1895, averring .that the defendant was never indebted and never promised as alleged. On January 13, 1896, under the Maryland practice, upon the suggestion of the defendant (plaintiff in error) that it could not have a fair trial, the case was “ transmitted ” to the Supreme Court of Baltimore, Maryland.
The record contains a number of motions and exceptions to the rulings on the motions. One of these exceptions was that the ruling of the court deprived plaintiff in error of a jury trial under a law of Maryland and the rules of court made in accordance therewith, which law and rules plaintiff in error alleges are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Another objection was to an order made on the 6th of Februarjq 1896, requiring plaintiff in error to employ new counsel, the cause under the practice of the court having been peremptorily set for trial on the 2‘0th of February, 1896, after having been twice postponed for the alleged sickness of counsel.
An appeal was entered from this order and perfected. The Court of Appeals dismissed it December 3, 1896, saying:
“The appeal in this case having been prematurely taken, the motion to dismiss it must prevail.
“The defendant, long after the time fixed by the rule of court, demanded a jury trial, and without waiting for the action of the court upon his motion, and indeed before there was any trial of the case upon its merits and before any judgment, final or otherwise, was rendered, this appeal was taken from what the order of appeal calls the order of court of the 6th of February, 1896, denying the defendant the right of a jury trial; but no such order appears to have been passed. On the day mentioned in the order of appeal there was an order passed by the court below fixing the case for trial, but there was no action taken in pursuance of such order until subsequent to this appeal. There is another appeal pending here from the orders which were ultimately passed.
“ Appeal dismissed.”
No" Federal question was disposed of by this decision.
Writ of - error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1914)…eny to it this right. •We think it is not denied or taken away by anything in the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments thereto.” And see Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 72; Chappell Chemical Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co. (No. 3), 172 U. S. 474; Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 598. It is, however, further contended that Act No. 612 only undertakes to deny to the inhabitants of the city the right to a preliminary investigation when the prosecuting attorney sees fit to conduct an…
-
Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Snell, 193 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1904)…and in the provisions made for the tidal of causes in the courts which are created. This proposition, however, was long since decided to be untenable. Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22; Chappel Chemical & Fertilizer Company v. Sulphur Mines Company, 172 U. S. 474. In the first of. these cases it was directly held that the-Fourteenth Amendment did not operate to deprive the several States of the complete power to create such courts as were deemed essential, and to endow them with such jurisdiction as was cons…
-
Mason v. Missouri, 179 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1900)…on of the laws. Nor did the exercise by the general assembly of Missouri of the discretion vested in it by law give rise to a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Chappell Chemical Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co., 172 U. S. 474, 475, and cases cited; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 598. Jxidgxnent affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence