DOWNHAM
v.
ALEXANDRIA

U.S. | 1869-12-01
9 Wall. 659 Supreme Court of the United States (1869) Caution
Also reported at: 19 L. Ed. 807 · 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1014 · SCDB 1869-119
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court

The act of February, 1867, extends the limitation upon appeals to all cases where original judgments of the Circuit Court are fully sustained by the judgment of the District Court, and where the amount in controversy does not exceed the legislative limit. And the case before us, though not excluded from the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals by the Constitution, seems to be excluded by this act. The only question, then, is whether -this act of the legislature is in conflict with the constitution of the State. And we perceive no conflict. The legislature, then, having thought fit to make the judgment of the District Court in this case final and without appeal, that court is, for this case, the highest court in which the decision could be made; and the writ of error is, therefore, warranted by the act of Congress, and regular. Motion to dismiss must be

Denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kentucky v. Powers. Ex parte Commonwealth of Ky., 201 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1906)
    …rly Session Court' for the Borough of Norfolk, Virginia, and our jurisdiction was sustained upon the ground that such' court was the highest court of the State in which, under the laws of Virginia, that case was cognizable. In Downham v. Alexandria, 9 Wall. 659, which was a suit for taxes against a dealer in liquors, the court said: “The legislature, then, having thought fit to make the judgment of the District Court in this case final and without appeal, that court is, for this case, the highest court in…
  • Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1935)
    …dent has in obedience to the mandate of the law of Texas discriminated against the petitioner or denied him any right guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Judgment affirmed. 294 U. S. 699. Rule 38, 5 (a). Downham v. Alexandria, 9 Wall. 659; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101. Constitution of Texas, Article V, §§ 3, 6, 8, 16 and 19. Revised Civil Statutes of Texas of 1925, Articles 1906-1911, 2385-2387, 2454, 2460. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rawlins, 80 Tex. 579; Hudson v. Smith, 63 T…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw