WILLIAM J. MINOR AND CATHERINE HIS WIPE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
SHUBAL TILLOTSON

U.S. | 1843-01-01
1 How. 287 Supreme Court of the United States (1843) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 11 L. Ed. 134 · SCDB 1843-025 · 1843 U.S. LEXIS 310
Cited by 8 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 rejected a motion to dismiss a writ of error from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, holding that although the record lacked a bill of exception or statement of facts in the form required by Louisiana practice, the Court could not determine on a motion to dismiss whether the record presented reviewable questions of law. The plaintiffs retained the right to be heard on the merits to demonstrate that any alleged legal error appeared in the record, with affirmance required only if they failed to make such a showing.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United .States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

A motion has been made to dismiss the writ, upon the ground that the record contains no bill of exception, nor statement of facts by the court, according to the practice in Louisiana, by which any question of law is brought up for revision in such a form as to enable this court to decide upon it; and that there is a mass of various and conflicting testimony in relation to facts, upon which no jurisdiction can be exercised upon a writ of error.'

Assuming this statement to be correct, it does not follow that advantage can be taken of it upon a motion to dismiss. The-record shows that a judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court, over which this court undoubtedly have jurisdiction upon a writ. of error. The plaintiffs allege that there is error in law in this judgment, and have brought it-here for the revision o'f this court. And upon the argument of the' case it will be incumbent upon them to show that the record presents, in some form or other, a statement of facts upon which a question of law arose in the Circuit Court, and which ~was there erroneously decided. And if he fails to do this,’ the judgment must be affirmed.. But he is entitled to be heard, in order that he may show, if he can, that the error of which he complains appears in the record; and whether it does so appear or not, is a matter which cannot be inquired into in the form in which the case is now brought before us.

The motion must-therefore be dismissed.

ORDER. On consideration of the motion made in this cause, on a prior day of the present term of this court, to wit, on Saturday, the 18th ult., by Mr. Webster, to dismiss this writ of error, for the want of jurisdiction, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon had, as well in support of as against the said motion, it is thereupon now here considered and ordered by this court, that the said motion be and thé same is hereby dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 427 (U.S. 1857)
  • Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1878)
    …appellant is entitled to be heard in order that he may show, if he can, that the error of which he complains appears in the record; and whether it does so appear or not cannot be inquired into in the form of a motion to dismiss. Minor v. Tillotson, 1 How. 287; Stevens v. Gladding & Proud, 19 id. 64; Suydam v. Williamson et al., 20 id. 427. Parties who sue out writs of error or take appeals for delay may be subjected to ten per cent damages in addition to interest, under the present rule of the court, wh…
  • Sunray Oil Corp. v. Allbritton, 187 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1951)
    …e Court in 1830.11 We should not close our minds to this great constitutional question. McCORD, Circuit Judge, concurs in this dissent. STRUM, Circuit Judge, took no part in this decision. APPENDIX 1. Minor v. Tillotson, 2 How. 392, 43 U.S. 392, 11 L.Ed. 134; Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 427, 15 L.Ed. 978; New York Cent. & H. Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U.S. 24, 25 L.Ed. 531; Wabash Railway Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U.S. 454, 2 S.Ct. 932, 27 L.Ed. 605; Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed.…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw