HURST
v.
HOLLINGSWORTH
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.
Hurst filed both an appeal and a writ of error in the Supreme Court to bring the same case, and after the case was docketed as a writ of error, the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal while Hurst sought to docket it as an appeal. The Court held that a single case need not be entered twice on the docket merely because the plaintiff brought it by two different procedural methods, and the Court would determine the proper mode of review when examining the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
Hurst, the plaintiff below, being in doubt whether his case was one to be brought here by appeal or by writ of error, took the precaution of suing out a writ of error, and also of obtaining the allowance of an appeal. At the proper time he filed a transcript of the record, and the cause was docketed by the clerk as upon a writ of error; thereupon the defendant moved to docket and dismiss the appeal. Hurst now appears and asks leave to docket his appeal. The defendant does not object to this, but, treating it as an election for Hurst to proceed here upon the appeal, moves to dismiss the writ of error. These motions are all denied. There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record. When the transcript of that record was brought here by Hurst, his cause was docketed. It is not necessary to enter it twice, because, out of abundant caution and to guard against a possible chance of dismissal, he has brought it here in two ways. He has but one cause; and, when we come to examine it, we will determine whether .it is properly here by appeal or by writ of error, and will proceed accordingly. Motions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plymouth Gold Mining Co. v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Co., 118 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1886)…rom this order an appeal was taken and writ of error brought, and these have been docketed here as separate causes. It was not necessary to docket the cause twice because it was brought here both by appeal and writ of error. Hurst v. Hollingsworth, 94 U. S. 111. There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record. The appeal and writ of error bring up but one order or judgment for review, and there is, therefore, but one case here. [*270] Upon the face of the complaint there is in the…