JONES
v.
LA VALLETTE
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of tire court.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave appellate jurisdiction to' this court by writ of error, and it was held that under that act no cause could be brought here by appeal.*
The act of 1808 gave appellate jurisdiction by appeal “from final judgments and decrees in cases of equity, of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction, and of prize or no, prize.” No other cases can be brought here in this mode, and the case in the record is of neither class. It must come here, if at all, upon writ of error. The appeal must therefore be
Dismissed eob, want oe jurisdiction.
*
Blaine v. Ship Charles Carter, 4 Dallas, 22.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Dower v. Richards, 151 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1894)…e Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377; Rev. Stat. § 692; Act of February 16, 1875, c.77, § 1; 18 Stat. 315; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381. Judgments of the Circuit Court in actions at law have remained reviewable by writ of error only. Jones v. La Vallette, 5 Wall. 579; Act of July 4, 1840, c. 43, § 3; 5 Stat. 393; Rev. Stat. § 691. Upon such a writ of error, this court, as is well settled, cannot review a decision of a question of fact, even if by the local practice, as in Louisiana, the law and the facts are tri…
-
Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States, 226 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1912)…w. As we construe the statute, the Circuit Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction upon the appeal, and neither the action of the court nor the consent of the parties could givé it. Leo Lung On v. United States, 159 Fed. Rep. 125; Jones v. La Vallette, 5 Wall. 579; United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414; Perez v. Fernandez, 202 U. S. 80, 100. As the Circuit Court of Appeals, in our opinion, proceeded without jurisdiction by reason of the appeal, this court, having acquired -jurisdiction, should reverse -the…
-
Washington v. Strickland, 673 F.2d 879 (5th Cir. 1982)…y on the former trial, to the testimony given by the parties, and to the questions submitted to the jury for their consideration, and then the record furnishes the only proper proof of the verdict. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 580, 593, 18 L.Ed. 550 (1866). See also McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 35 S.Ct. 783, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915). Early in this century, the Court extended the rule of Packet Co. v. Sickles to bar testimony from a judge on the question whether, in fashioning his decree, he ha…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence