JAMES D. PORTER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
BUSHROD W. FOLEY
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 1858 case, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error brought by James D. Porter against Bushrod W. Foley for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the writ was defectively issued and could not properly bring the case before the Court, as had already been decided in a related case decided that same term. The Court allowed Porter to withdraw the transcript for use with proper legal process if he wished to pursue the matter, but dismissed the current proceeding without prejudice to the jurisdiction question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
The writ of error in this case was issued on the 27th day of December last, and made returnable on the third Monday in January, and the defendant in error cited to appear on that day.
Jt has already been decided at the present term, in the case .of Insurance Co. of the Valley of Virginia 'v. Mordecai, that such a writ of error cannot be supported, and does not bring the case before the court.
A motion has been made, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, to remand the Case to the court below, with leave to amend the writ of error and citation. But, as the transcript stands, there is no cáse before us in which we can exercise a power of amendment. We-can do nothing more than dismiss it for . want of jurisdiction.
But if the plaintiff desires it, he may, in order to save expense, withdraw the transcript, and use it in connection with the proper and legal process to bring the case here; and if withdrawn, a receipt for it must be left with the clerk.
But as it now. stands, it must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beach v. Kirk, 138 Fla. 80 (Fla. 1935)…tt v. De Launy, 4 N. Y. 363; Browne v. Vredenburg, 43 N. Y. 195; Barnard v. Young, 17 Ves. 44; Clift v. Barrow, 108 N. Y. 187, 15 N. E. 327 — which illustrate the exception stated by Chancellor Walworth. See also Canal Co. v. Vallette, 21 How. 414, 16 L. Ed. 154. The case is not ruled by Comstock v. Wilder, 61 Iowa 274, 16 N. W. 108, relied upon by plaintiff.” The cases cited in the opinion above quoted' amply sustain the holding there enunciated. In the Master’s Report we find the following language: “P…
-
Moulder v. Forrest, 19 L. Ed. 154 (U.S. 1869)…doubtless occasioned by an oversight of the clerk below; but a majority of the court is of the opinion that the writ cannot be amended here without departure from its established practice. Insurance Company v. Mordecai, 21 How. 195; Porter v. Foley, 21 How. 393. Dismissed.…
-
Green v. City of Stuart, 81 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1936)…e to bind itself by those notes when they were executed was cured by the above-mentioned act of the Florida Legislature. Anderson v. Santa Anna Tp., 116 U.S. 356, 364, 6 S.Ct. 413, 29 L.Ed. 633; White Water Valley Canal Co. v. Vallette, 21 How. 414, 16 L.Ed. 154. The court erred in ruling that the notes sued on are invalid. In the circumstances disclosed, the alleged insufficiency of the description in the Osceola Golf Club’s deed to appellee of the subject of the conveyance did not constitute a defense to…
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