RANDALL ET AL.
v.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY, INDIANA
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.
Plaintiffs brought a writ of error to the Indiana Supreme Court following dismissal of their complaint in the trial court, but the state supreme court transferred the case to the Indiana Appellate Court for lack of jurisdiction, which then affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the writ because it was directed to the wrong court—the writ should have been brought to the Appellate Court, which was the highest state court that actually decided the case, rather than to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Justice Sutherland.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Indiana, when, clearly, it should have been to the State Appellate Court.
The action was brought in the Superior Court for Tippecanoe County. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. An appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court < but that court, of its own motion, entered an order trans-' ferring the cause to the Appellate Court, for want of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court thereupon took the case, received the briefs of counsel, heard oral arguments .and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. A petition for rehearing was submitted and denied. Plaintiffs in errop then applied to the Supreme Court for an order to vacate its former order of transfer, or, in the alternative, for a writ of error coram nobis, which the Supreme Court denied.
It therefore appears that the Supreme Court refused to take the cáse on appeal' for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment of the highest-court of the State in which a decision in the suit could be had, Judicial Code, § 237, is that of the Appellate Court to which the writ should have been directed.
The writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed on the authority of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hughes, 203 U. S. 505; Lane v. Wallace, 131 U. S. Appendix CCXIX; Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 269; Second National Bank v. First National Bank, 242 U. S. 600; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1924)…by the Court of Civil Appeals. 248 S. W. 165. The Supreme Court of the State having dismissed an application [*393] for a writ of error for want of jurisdiction, the writ of error here was issued to the intermediate court. Randall v. Commissioners, 261 U. S. 252. The judgment below is challenged upon these grounds: (1) The policy as shown by the undisputed evidence never became a completed or binding contract; (2) it was a Tennessee or Connecticut contract and, since under the laws of those States no penal…
-
Nord v. Griffin, 86 F.2d 481 (7th Cir. 1936)…is he required to wait until it reaches the jurisdictional amount. The latter declaration is supported by Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 17 S.Ct. 262, 41 L.Ed. 648.” See, also, Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Railroad Comm. of Georgia, 261 U.S. 264, 43 S.Ct. 252, 67 L.Ed. 645; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. McConnell (C.C.) 82 F. 65; American Fisheries Co. v. Lennen (C.C.) 118 F. 869; Haas et al. v. Burton (C.C.A.) 25 F.(2d) 938. Here appellee was entitled to certain seniority rights which furnished him…
-
Elliott v. Empire Natural GAS Co., 4 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1925)…t was held the matter in dispute was the claimed right of exemption. The pecuniary result of the judgment there would be greater than the jurisdictional amount. In Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Georgia et al., 261 U. S. 264, 43 S. Ct. 252, 67 L. Ed. 645, the Supreme Court, in a suit by a railroad attacking as unconstitutional a state order requiring -it to use and operate an industrial spur track, found that the jurisdictional amount was involved; that the pecuniary amount involved i…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1922)
- Norfolk & Suburban Tpk. Co. v. Commonwealth of Va., 225 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1912)
- Second Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati v. First Nat'l Bank of Okeana, 242 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1917)
- W. Union Tel. Co. v. Hughes, 203 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1906)