PARCELS
v.
JOHNSON
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error from a Missouri Supreme Court judgment that had merely reversed and remanded a case to an inferior court for further proceedings. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review state court judgments that are not final, as a writ of error can only issue to review the final judgment of a state's highest court, and the parties must exhaust all available state court remedies before the Supreme Court can exercise its appellate authority.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ of error is dismissed, upon the authority of Moore v. Robbins, * St. Clair County v. Lovingston, † Tracy v. Holcombe, ‡ Pepper v. Dunlap,§ Brown v. Union Bank. ||
A writ of error can only issue from this court to the highest court of a State for a review of the final judgment or decree of. that court in a suit. In other words, it is only the last judgment or the last decree which the State courts can give in a suit, until that judgment.or decree is set aside or reversed, that this court can, even in the prescribed cases bring here for re-examinátion.
The .judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri, brought up in this case, is one of reversal only and remanding the suit’to the inferior court for. further procéédiugs in accordance with'the opinion delivered and filed-. The cause was', .sent back, therefore,-for a new trial or a new hearing. Upon’ •such trial or hearing the inferior court can proceed to render’.a new judgment, not inconsistent with the opinion, and that judgment may in its turn be taken to the Supreme Court for examination.
• From the record it appears that one of the defences set up in the answer, to wit, that which was based upon the'implied acceptance of one-third of the proceeds of the guardian’s salé in lieu of dower in the land, was not proven. On a new trial that proof may be supplied and a-judgment rendered thereon satisfactory to the. now complaining party. In that manner the present supposed Federal question may be put out of the case. So, too, the present pleadings may be amended and a new case made, which will render unnecessary the consideration of any question that can give this court jurisdiction.
Thus it is apparent that the parties have not w.s yet exhausted the power of the State courts in the premises, and until that is done our power cannot be called into action. This court must be the last resort of litigants’ in State' courts.
Writ dismissed.
* 18. ^Wallace, 588.
* * * * *
‡ 24 Howard, 426.
§
5 Id. 61.
||
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haseltine v. Cent. Bank OF Springfield, 183 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1901)…rror is therefore dismissed upon the authority of Brown v. Union Bank of Florida, 4 How. 465; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; St. Clair Co. v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Johnson v Keith, 117 U. S. 199. Dismissed.…
-
Great W. Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1896)…n Pleas is not the highest court of the State; but the judgment we are called upon to reexamine is the judgment of that court.alone. The judgment of the Supreme Court is one of reversal only. As such, it was not a final judgment. Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; St. Clair v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628. The Common Pleas was not directed to enter a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court and carry it into execution, but to proceed with the case according to law. The Supreme Court…
-
McComb v. Comm'rs of Knox Cnty., 91 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1875)…Pleas is not the highest court of the State; but the judgment we are called upon to re-examine is the judgment of that court alone. The judgment of the Supreme Court is one of reversal only. As such, it was not a final judgment. Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Moore v. Robbins, 18 id. 588; St. Clair v. Lovingston, id. 628. The Common Pleas was not directed to enter a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court and carry it into execution, but to proceed with the case according to law. The Supreme Court, so f…
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