SAMUEL VERDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
ISAAC COLEMAN
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.
Samuel Verden appealed a judgment affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court in a dispute over a promissory note and mortgage, but sought to bring the case to the United States Supreme Court by filing an appeal rather than a writ of error. The Court dismissed the case because under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act, only a writ of error—not an appeal—could bring a final decision from a state court of last resort to the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.
Coleman sued Verden in a State court oflndiana, on a note of hand, and a mortgage of lands, to secure its payment. On various pleadings and proofs, the cause was submitted for judgment to the court, the parties having dispensed with a jury. Judgment was rendered against Verden, who appealed to the Supremo Court of Indiana. There the judgment of the circuit was affirmed.
This occurred on the 26th day of June, 1868. And then we find the following entry of record: “And afterwards, to wit, at a court began and held on the 24th of .May, 1858, and continued from day to day till July 16th, 1858, at which time 'lome the appellant, by Hon D. Mace, his attorney, and prays dn appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which pray’ei is granted.” Bond was given to prosecute the appeal, and ihe clerk certifies the record to be a true copy of the proceedings.
No appeal can be taken from the final decision of a State court of last resort, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, to the Supreme Court of the United States. A writ of error alone can bring up the cause. We refer to the appendix of Curtis’s Digest for the mode.
It is ordered that the case be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dower v. Richards, 151 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1894)…urisdiction which has ever been- conferred by Congress upon this court to review the judgments or decrees, at. law' or in equity,' of the highest court of a State,, has been by writ of error. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 410; Verden v. Coleman, 22 How. 192; Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, § 25; 1 Stat. 85 ; Act of February 5, 1867, c. 28, § 2; 14 Stat. 386; Rev. Stat. § 709; Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5; 26 Stat. 827. Such a writ of error can be sustained only when the decision' of the state c…
-
Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black 554 (U.S. 1862)