« AnteriorContinuar »
$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 Ilow. 290.
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 brought up by appeal. Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 Ilow. 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. McGregor, 13 Wall. 188.
16. (Oct., 1875.) This court can only review the final
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.
TERRITORY BECOMING A STATE.
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