Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

adjudicate certain claims in the manner directed by the preceding acts.

From the award of the district judge an appeal does not lie to this court. United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40.

9. As the treaty itself designated no tribunal to assess the damages, it remained for Congress to do so, by referring the claims to a commissioner, according to the established practice of the government in such cases. His decision was not the judgment of a court, but a mere award, with a power to review it, conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury. Ib.

10. (Dec., 1857.) The laws of the provisional government [of the Territory of New Mexico] authorized an attachment against the property of a debtor, in cases in which a party claiming to be a creditor, upon a petition and affidavit, charged that his debtor had fraudulently disposed of his property, so as to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors. By the same law, an issue was directed to be tried, upon the petition and affidavit of the plaintiff; upon which issue, if the finding sustained the petition and affidavit, the plaintiff was authorized to proceed to the proof of his debt; if the finding was against the charge in the petition, the attachment was to be dismissed. These proceedings with reference to the attachment are in their nature proceedings in abatement, and are not final as to the rights of the parties, and therefore cannot be reviewed upon writ of error in this court. Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176.

11. (Dec., 1857.) Where there was a covenant to sell land, upon condition that the purchase money should be paid in instalments, and other acts done by the covenantee, in failure to perform which rent was to be charged, and the covenantee failed to execute his contract, the rent was justly chargeable.

The equitable as well as legal considerations being involved in the case, and the amount of property large, this court can take jurisdiction, although the amount of rent is less than

$1,000. [From Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota.] Stinson v. Dousman, 20 How. 461.

12. (Dec., 1858.) Congress passed no law in any wise affecting title to lands in the Territory of Oregon until September, 1850; and, therefore, where a controversy arose, in July, 1850, relating to titles to land, neither party could be said to have a legal title.

Consequently, the amount in controversy could not be ascertained, so as to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this court; and there is no question arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, so as to give jurisdiction. Lownsdale v. Parrish, 21 How. 290.

brought up by appeal.

13. (Dec., 1859.) Although the laws of the territory abolished the distinction between cases at law and cases in equity, and required all cases to be removed from an inferior to a higher court by writ of error, and not by appeal, yet such laws cannot regulate the process of this court; and the present case, being in the nature of a bill in equity, is properly Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118. 14. (Dec., 1866.) An appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial does not, under the legislation of Nevada, carry the original judgment and the whole cause before the appellate court, so that the decision upon the appeal operates as a judgment reversing or affirming the judgment below. Sparrow v. Strong, 4 Wall. 584.

15. (Dec., 1871.) A decree of the highest court of a state affirming an order of an inferior court, by which a motion to set aside a sheriff's return to an execution was allowed, and an alias execution awarded, is not a "final judgment" within the meaning of the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act, nor within the meaning of the ninth section of the Organic Act of the Territory of Montana, giving appeals from the Supreme Court of the territory to this court. Wells v. Mc Gregor, 13 Wall. 188.

16. (Oct., 1875.) This court can only review the final

judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington, in criminal cases, when the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States is drawn in question. Watts v. Territory of Washington, 1 Otto, 580.

17. (Oct., 1876.) A writ of error from this court to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah is allowed by sec. 3 of the act of Congress of June 23, 1874 (18 Stat. 254), in criminal cases, where the accused has been sentenced to capital punishment, or convicted of bigamy or polygamy. Wiggins v. People, &c., 3 Otto, 465.

18. (Oct., 1876.) This court will refuse to hear a criminal case, unless the convicted party suing out the writ of error is where he can be made to respond to any judgment which may be rendered here. Smith v. United States, 4 Otto, 97.

19. (Oct., 1877.) This court has no power to re-examine the action of a territorial court in refusing to set aside a judgment by default. McAllister v. Kuhn, 6 Otto, 87.

20. Upon a writ of error to reverse a judgment by default, such defects in the declaration or complaint as could have been taken advantage of before the judgment, by general demurrer, may be brought under review. Ib.

21. If the judgment would have been arrested on motion, because the declaration did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it may, for the same reason, be reversed upon error. Ib.

22. (Oct., 1878.) Under the act entitled "An Act concerning the practice in territorial courts, and appeals therefrom," approved April 7, 1874 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 27), the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the judgment or decree rendered by a territorial court, in a case not tried by a jury, can only be exercised by appeal. Stringfellow v. Cain, 9 Otto, 610.

23. (Oct., 1878.) The doctrine in Stringfellow v. Cain (supra, p. 610) reaffirmed. Cannon v. Pratt, 9 Otto, 619. 24. (Oct., 1879.) This court has no jurisdiction to review

the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming, unless the record shows that the matter actually in dispute exceeds $1,000. Nagle v. Rutledge, 10 Otto, 675.

When a Territory becomes a State after Judgment or Decree in the Territorial Court.

SEC. 703. In all cases where the judgment or decree of any court of a territory might be reviewed by the Supreme Court, on writ of error or appeal, such writ of error or appeal may be taken, within the time and in the manner provided by law, notwithstanding such territory has, after such judgment or decree, been admitted as a state; and the Supreme Court shall direct the mandate to such court as the nature of the writ of error or appeal requires.

12 June, 1858, c. 154, s. 18, v. 11, p. 328.

SECTION 703.

TERRITORY BECOMING A STATE.
DECISIONS 1-9.

1. (Jan., 1846.) Upon the admission of Florida as a state, the records of the former territorial Court of Appeals were directed by a law of the state to be deposited for safekeeping with the clerk of the Supreme Court of the state.

No writ of error can be issued to bring up a record thus situated, the territorial court being defunct, and the Supreme Court of the state not holding the records as part of its own records, nor exercising judicial power over them. Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589.

2. If the record were to be brought up under the fourteenth section of the act of 1789, it would be of no avail, because there is no court to which the mandate of this court could be transmitted. Ib.

3. (Dec., 1850.) Where a case had been brought up to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wisconsin, and was pending in this court at the time when Wisconsin was admitted as a state, the jurisdiction of this

court over it ceased when such admission took place. MeNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72.

4. Provision was made in the act of Congress for the transfer, from the territorial courts to the District Court of the United States, of all cases appropriate to the jurisdiction of the new District Court; but none for cases appropriate to the jurisdiction of state tribunals. Ib.

5. By the admission of Wisconsin as a state, the territorial government ceased to exist, and all the authority under it, including the laws organizing its courts of justice, and providing for a revision of their judgments in this court.

Ib.

6. The act of Congress passed in February, 1848, supplementary to that of February, 1817, applies only to cases which were pending in the territorial courts, and does not include such as were pending in this court at the time of the admission of Wisconsin as a state. Ib.

7. Even if Congress had directed the transfer, to the District Court of the United States, of cases appropriate to the jurisdiction of state courts, this court could not have carried its judgment into effect by a mandate to the District Court.

Ib.

8. (Dec., 1850.) Where a judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court for Iowa Territory, and the record certified to this court by the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa after her admission into the Union, and the subject-matter is within the jurisdiction of this court, it will take jurisdiction over the case. Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437.

9. (Dec., 1864.) When Congress has passed an act admitting a territory into the Union as a state, but omitting to provide by such act for the disposal of cases pending in this court on appeal or writ of error, it may constitutionally and properly pass a subsequent act making such provision for them. Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160.

« AnteriorContinuar »