JOSEPH EVANS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STERLING H. GEE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Joseph Evans challenging a lower court's refusal to quash an execution issued against the estate of Thomas Evans, holding that a writ of error does not lie from the denial of a motion to quash an execution because such a refusal is not a final judgment under the Judiciary Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mv. Justice Catron delivered the opinion of the Court.
The-principal matters appearing -in the record are not now open to-investigation, being the same adjudged of by this Court-in 1837; the report of which is found in 11 Peters, 81.
Theoriginal judgment against Thomas Evans was rendered atMay term, 1836." No execution seems-to have issued until 16th March, 1S38, when one was taken out bearing teste the s.econd Monday of October, 1837, and returnable the second Monday of April, 1838.
Nothing appears in the record showing that Thomas Evans was dead, save an affidavit of one of his sons, and the circumstance that the administrator’s name is used in prosecuting the writ of error: but no suggestion of the death of Thomas Evans, nor any revival of the judgment against his administrator, is found.
The .execution was levied on sundry slaves, and a bond given for their delivery, which recites that the execution, in virtue of which the levy was made, bore teste at.May term, 1S36; and to this date the writ may have had relation, by the laws of Alabama, and the' facts of the case.
One of the sons of Thomas Evans made an affidavit, stating his father to have died on the 12th day of September, 1837, on which' the motion to quash the execution and delivery bond was founded. The motion was refused; but for what particular reason, does not' appear; nor does this Court feel itself authorized to inquire. It is the settled doctrine here, that a writ of error, does not lie upon the refusal of a motion to quash-an execution: such record of refusal not being a final judgment in the sense of the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act. We will content ourselves by referring to the opinion of the Court in the cause of Boyle vs. Zacharie and Turner, 6 Peters, 654. It is therefore ordered, that the writ of error be dismissed, and the supersedeas discharged.
This cause came on tó be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court, that this writ of error .be, and the same is hereby, dismissed with costs; and that this causé be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions to proceed therein according to law and justice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 16 How. 314 (U.S. 1853)
-
Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U.S. 580 (U.S. 1893)…lated by the judiciary acts of the general government. Refusal to quash a writ is not a final judgment. Boyle V. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 635, 657; McCargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555; Early v. Rogers, 16 How. 599; Amis v. Smith, 16 Pet. 303, 314; Evans v. Gee, 14 Pet. 1. It is also well settled by the decisions of this court that the attempt to raise for the first time a Federal question,-in a petition for rehearing, after judgment, comes too late. Texas and Pacific Railway Co. v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 13…
-
Davies v. Corbin & Others, 112 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1884)
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
- Custiss v. The Georgetown & Alexandria Tpk. Co., 6 Cranch 233 (U.S. 1810)
- The Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright, 7 Wheat. 534 (U.S. 1822)
- Mountz and others v. Hodgson & Thompson, 4 Cranch 324 (U.S. 1808)