THOMAS LELAND AND OTHERS
v.
DAVID WILKINSON

U.S. | 1832-01-01
Mr Justice Baldwin dissented.
6 Pet. 317 Supreme Court of the United States (1832) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 8 L. Ed. 412 · 1832 U.S. LEXIS 476 · SCDB 1832-036
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court held that evidence of Rhode Island legislative proceedings and historical practices regarding estate administration cannot be considered on a writ of error unless those facts are recorded in the trial court record, and that such matters of fact must be proven in the circuit court through ordinary evidentiary procedures rather than examined on appeal.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr Chief Justice Marshall

The judges having severally expressed their opinion,

Mr Chief Justice Marshall said, the evidence objected to is-' understood to be offered to prove that certain proceedings have been had at different, times in the legislature of Rhode Island, on private petitions of a similar nature with that before the court; and that there haye been certain usages and proceedings in the legislature of Rhode Island, in regard to th'e administration and sale of the estates of deceased persons for their debts, which will establish, that it has for a long period by usage, and rightfully, exercised the authority contended for by the defendant. The public laws of a state may without question be read in this court; and the exercise of any authority which they contain, may be deduced historically from them: but private laws, and special proceedings of the character spoken of, are governed by a different rule. They are matters of fact, to be -proved as such in the ordinary manner. This court cannot go into an inquiry as to the existence of such facts upon a writ of error, if they are not found on the record. The evidence, if not objected to, might have been heard; but since it is controverted, the matter of fact must be ascertained in the circuit court.

Mr Justice Baldwin dissented.

[Upon this decision, the parties consented to remand the cause to the circuit court for further inquiry into the facts.]


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw