COMSTOCK
v.
EAGLETON
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.
Comstock brought an action for false imprisonment damages against Eagleton in Oklahoma territorial court, but the lower court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because under the governing statute, only writs of error—not appeals—were the proper mechanism for reviewing final judgments in actions at law from Oklahoma's supreme court when the amount in controversy exceeded five thousand dollars.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
This was an action brought by Com-stock against Eagleton in the District Court of Pawnee County, Oklahoma, to recover damages .for false imprisonment in the sum of $5,317.50.
The petition was demurred to on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the demurrer was sustained, and the petition dismissed with costs. The case tvas then carried to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma on-error, and the judgment affirmed. 11 Oklahoma, 487.
From the judgment of affirmance this appeal was allowed and prosecuted to this court.
By section 9 of the "Act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Oklahoma,” approved May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, c. 182, it was provided that “where the value of the property or the amount in controversy” exceeded five thousand dollars, “writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court shall be allowed and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States.”
Final judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States in actions at law can only be revised on writs of error. Deland v. Platte County, 155 U. S. 221; Met. Railroad Company v. District of Columbia, 195 U. S. 322; Bevins v. Ramsey, 11 How. 185; Sarchet v. United States, 12 Pet. 143.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Behn v. Campbell & GO Tauco, 205 U.S. 403 (U.S. 1907)…bsence of modification by statute is the rule in respect to all courts whose records are brought here for review. Walker v. Dreville, 12 Wall. 440; United States v. Hailey, 118 U. S. 233; Deland v. Platte County, 155 U. S. 221; Comstock v. Eagleton, 196 U. S. 99. The defendant, having failed in its appeal, has now brought a writ of error and asks this court to review the facts to the same extent that they would be reviewed on appeal. But this overlooks the vital distinction between appeals and writs of err…
-
Okla. City v. McMASTER, 196 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1905)…Court of the Territory of Oklahoma is specially provided for by the ninth section of the act of May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, 85, providing a territorial government for Oklahoma, and is not. governed by the act of Congress of 1874. Comstock v. Eagleton, 196 U. S. 99. The ninth section of the act of' 1890 provides that writs of error and appeal from the final decision of the Supreme Court of the Territory will be allowed and may be taken to the Supreme [*532] Court of the United States "in the same manner and un…
-
Nat'l Live Stock Bank of Chicago v. First Nat'l Bank of Geneseo, 203 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1906)…improper. There is nothing in this objection, as in actions at law coming from the Territory of Oklahoma it has been held that the proper way to review the judgments of the Supreme Court of that Territory was by writ of error. Comstock v. Eagleton, 196 U. S. 99; Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 196 U. S. 529; Guss v. Nelson, 200 U. S. 298. Further objection-is. made that the-court below found no facts upon which a review can be had in this court. The foregoing statement disposes of this objection.also, and show…
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
- Metro. R.R. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 195 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1904)
- Deland v. Platte Cnty., 155 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1894)
- Williams C. Bevins and Oliver P. Earle v. Ramsey, 11 How. 185 (U.S. 1850)
- Edward Sarchet and others v. The United States, 12 Pet. 143 (U.S. 1838)