MARTHA BRADSTREET, DEMANDANT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM F. POTTER, TENANT, 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.
In this appeal arising from a property dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment based on the identical procedural errors that had been resolved in the prior case of Bradstreet v. Thomas, holding that the earlier decision controlled the outcome. The Court also declined to address additional legal questions raised by the parties in their briefs, establishing that appellate courts may only rule on points properly excepted to in the lower court record, not on matters raised in anticipation of retrial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is. admitted by the counsel for the defendant in error, that this case presents upon the record no other exceptions than such as were before this.Court, in the case of Martha Bradstreet v. Anson Thomas, 13 Peters, 174. That case then'rules it, and the judgment in the Court below must be reversed.
But it is now-suggested that both parties desire to obtain the opinion of the flourt upon ulterior points in the case, as stated in their respective briefs, so as to have those points settled for the new trial of the cause when-remanded, for the errors of procedure adjudicated in the former case of Bradstreet and Thomas; because, from the terms of this Court’s opinion in that Case, it seems doubtful if the Court could regularly consider and determine those questions upon the bill of exceptions, as no\ir framed; though it be the mutual desire of the • parties to get the Court’s opinion • upon those questions; It is only necessary to say, in reply to this suggestion, that the Court cannot give any opinion upon points not properly before it; from those points not being in the bill of exceptions filed in the record to the Court’s ruling below. The proper function of a Court, in a writ .of error, is to pass its judgment upon the points excepted to in the opinion of the Court below; and not to decide the law of the-case, in anticipation of its trial in the Court below.
In respect to costs upon cases brought to this. Court, the rule is, as may be seen in the forty-seventh rule of the Court prefixed to 8 Peters’s Reports; that in all cases of reversals of any judgment or decree in this Court, except where the reversal shall be for want of jurisdiction, costs shall be allowed in this Court for the plaintiff in error, or appellant, as the case may.be, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. ’
The question as to costs in the Circuit Court is not before us.
The judgment in the Court below is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McMICHAEL v. Murphy, 197 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1905)
-
Broffe v. Horton, 173 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1949)…that the judge prepared his own findings, but there was nothing in the record to support a finding that Horton intended to give part of the shares to his wife before Broffe had committed himself to the sale. Petition denied. Bradstreet v. Potter, 16 Pet. 317, 10 L.Ed. 978. Land Oberoesterreich v. Gude, 2 Cir., 93 F. 2d 292; Berthold v. Burton, C.C., 169 F. 495 (Lacombe, .T.); Jennings v. Burton, C.C., 177 F. 603 (Lacombe, J.). Bailey v. Mississippi Home Telephone Co., D.C., 254 F. 358. Fed.Cas.No.14,…