MALLERS
v.
COMMERCIAL LOAN & TRUST 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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error brought by Mailers challenging an Illinois state court's judgment enforcing an execution on a promissory note debt to Commercial Loan & Trust Company, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction because no federal question was raised in the state courts and Mailers' attempt to raise one for the first time in the federal proceeding was untimely and legally insufficient.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The Commercial Loan & Trust Company, a banking corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, in 1895, brought suit against John B. Mailers upon a promissory note, and judgment was entered therein by-The appellate 'court for the first district in favor of the bank against Mailers, which judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
On the case being remanded to the appellate court an execution was issued by the clerk to enforce the collection of the judgment which Mailers moved to quash, and from the judgment of that court denying that motion á writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the appellate court.
The case was then brought here on writ of error, which must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction: Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 129; Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U.S. 86.
.No Federal question was raised in the state courts, and the attempt to raise a Federal question in the assignment of errors in this court, not only came too late, but was palpably not maintainable. Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland & Pittsburgh R.R. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 235 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1914)…on. National Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353; Re Spies, 123 U. S. 131; Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485; Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112; Mallers v. Commercial Loan & Trust Company, 216 U. S. 613; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524. It is equally well settled that an impairment of the obligation of the contract, within the meaning of the [*54] Federal Constitution, must be by subsequent legislation, and no mere change in judicial decision wi…
-
Commonwealth Tr. Co. v. Trocon, 235 U.S. 685 (U.S. 1914)…Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Mallers v. Commercial Loan & Trust Co., 216 U. S. 613; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 217 U. S. 589; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 529; City of Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 234 U. S. 751; (2) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Yazoo & Miss. R. R. v. Brewer, 231 U. S. 245; Holden Land Co. v. Interstate Tradin…
-
Welles v. Bryant, 238 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1915)…Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258; Mallers v. Commercial Loan & Trust Co., 216 U. S. 613; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 529; Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. R. v. Cleveland, 235 U. S. 50, 53.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1909)
- Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 202 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1906)
- Burt v. Smith, 203 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1906)
- Chapin v. FYE, 179 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1900)