OLIVER SAUNDERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
BENJAMIN GOULD
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.
In this case brought before the Supreme Court as essentially similar to a previously decided matter (Gardner v. Collins), the plaintiff sought to challenge the Court's earlier construction of a federal statute by presenting evidence of a different settled judicial construction in Rhode Island. Chief Justice Marshall held that the Court was not convinced the Rhode Island construction actually conflicted with the Court's prior decision, and upon discovering that the circuit court judges had divided on the entire case rather than specific points—rendering their certification irregular—the Court remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with proper practice.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall stated,
When this case was brought before bhe court, it was admitted by the counsel to be essentially the same with Gardner vs. Collins, reported in 2 Peters’s Rep. 58; but he relied on certain evidences which he exhibited of a settled judicial construction of the act on which the cause depended, different from that which had been made by this court. Had the court been satisfied on this point, that settled construction would undoubtedly have been respected. But the court was not convinced that the construction which, prevails in Rhode-Island is opposed to that which was made by this court. On communicating this decision to the bar, counsel declined arguing the cause ; -and a certificate, similar to that which was given in the former case, was about to be prepared: but on inspecting the record, if was perceived that the judges of the circuit court, instead of dividing on one or more points, had divided on thevwhole cause ; and had directed the whole case to be certified to this court. Considering this as irregular, the court directs the-cause' to be remanded to-the circuit court; that further proceedings may bé had therein according to law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1912)
-
United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1964)
-
Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1887)…; United States v. City Bank, 19 How. 385; Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294; Watson v. Taylor, 21 Wall. 378. The whole case, even when its decision turns upon matter of law only, cannot be sent up by certificate of division. Saunders v. Gould, 4 Pet. 392; United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 267; Harris v. Elliott, 10 Pet. 25; White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 238; United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208; Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646; United States v. Northway, 120 U.S. 327; State Bank v. St. Louis Co., 122 U.S. 21. No…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence