« AnteriorContinuar »
der an execution, a judgment of the Circuit Court on rules, as to whom the money should be paid, is not such a judgment as can be re-examined in this court. Curtis v. Petitpain, 18 How. 109.
25. (Dec., 1855.) A statute of Arkansas directs that, where lands are sold by a sheriff or other public officer, the purchaser is authorized to institute proceedings in a court, calling upon all persons to come in and show cause why the sale should not be confirmed.
Such a proceeding, when instituted in a state court, and removed into the Circuit Court, conformably to the act of Congress, constitutes a case over which this court will take jurisdiction. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137.
26. (Dec., 1855.) A motion to set the judgment aside was an application to the sound discretion of the court below. No appeal lies from its decision, nor is it the subject of a bill of exceptions or writ of error. Conner v. Peugh, 18 How. 394.
27. (Dec., 1856.) When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favor ; if the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiff ; and if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393.
28. (Dec., 1856.) The difference of the jurisdiction in this court, in the cases of writs of error to state courts, and to Circuit Courts of the United States, pointed out; and the mistakes made as to the jurisdiction of this court, in the latter case, by confounding it with its limited jurisdiction in the former. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 394.
29. (Dec., 1857.) Where the only bills of exception were to the refusal of the court to grant a continuance and change
the venue, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed, as these matters are not the subject of review by this court. McFaul v. Ramsey, 20 How. 523.
30. (Dec., 1858.) The court again decides that consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this court where the law does not give it; but leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript, and use it so as to bring bis case legally before this court. Ballance v. Forsyth, 21 low. 389.
31. (Dec., 1861.) This court will not interfere with the practice of the Circuit Courts concerning the order and time of introducing evidence, nor reverse a judgment for the rejection of evidence as rebutting, which onght to have been given in chief. Johnston v. Jones, 1 Black, 210.
32. (Dec., 1861.) The extent to which a cross-examination may be carried, beyond what is necessary to exhibit the merits of the case, must be guided and limited by the discretion of the judge who presides at the trial, and is not the subject of review in a court of crror. 1b.
33. (Dec., 1864.) This court has jurisdiction to review a judgment entered in the Circuit Court, by a clerk of that court, on the mere finding of a referee appointed by it to hear and determine all the issues in a case. Heckers v. Fowler, 2 Wall. 123.
31. (Dec., 1864.) This court will not hear, on writ of error, matters which are properly the subject of applications for new trial. Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160.
35. (Dec., 1865.) When the judgment brought before this court by writ of error purports to allirm generally the judgment of a court inferior to the affirming court, and the only judgment in the record of such inferior court is a general judgment, this court will take jurisdiction, though an appeal has also been taken, in the inferior court, under state laws, upon a motion refusing a new trial, and there are some indications in the record that this affirmance was intended to be of that refusal. Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 97.
36. (Dec., 1865.) The action of a Circuit Court, relative to a motion and order for judgment, is a matter within the Circuit Court's discretion, and not a subject for review here. Cheang-Kee v. United States, 3 Wall. 320.
37. (Dec., 1865.) Where a demurrer to a declaration in the Circuit Court is improperly sustained, and judgment is rendered accordingly, the case may be re-examined here, upon a writ of error, without any formal bill of exceptions. Rogers v. Burlington, 3 Wall. 654.
38. (Dec., 1866.) This court will not take jurisdiction of a judgment shown by the context of the record to be but an order affirming a refusal of a court below to grant a new trial ; even though the language of the record of affirmance, brought here by writ of error, purports to affirm generally the judgment of a court inferior to the affirming court, and the only judgment, in strict language, in the record of such inferior court, is a general judgment. Sparrow v. Strong, 4 Wall. 584.
39. (Dec., 1866.) Where the legislature, setting out reasons at large for the exercise of such a power, directs a sale of land so devised, and provides for the secure reinvestment of the proceeds, to the same uses as directed by the will, as to the estate sold, this court cannot revise the facts upon which the legislature has exercised the power. Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119.
40. (Dec., 1866.) The appellate jurisdiction of this court, on writs of error, under the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act, is confined, by the express words of the section, to final judgments; and the writ of error should be addressed to the final judgment accordingly. Barton v. Forsyth, 5 Wall. 190.
41. A judgment on a motion made by the plaintiff to set aside a writ of restitution, which had been issued in favor of the defendant, and to grant a writ of restitution to the plaintiff in a case, is not a final judgment within the terms of the said section ; in fact, is but an order of court. Hence, no
jurisdiction exists of a writ of error based on such a proceeding. 10.
42. (Dec., 1868.) The overruling of a motion for a new trial cannot be made the subject of review by this court. Laber v. Cooper, 7 Wall. 566.
43. (Dec., 1868.) If a court below have given such proper instructions on the questions of law in a case, and submitted the facts to the jury, there is no remedy in this court for a mistake of the jury. Mills v. Smith, 8 Wall. 27.
44. (Dec., 1869.) A plea of nul tiel record raises a question of law, where the supposed record is of the court in which the plea is filed. Basset v. United States, 9 Wall. 38.
45. Therefore, where the record relied on is produced in such a case, and made part of the record, by a statement of facts agreed on, it is a question of law whether it supports or fails to support the plea, and can be reviewed in this court. Ib.
46. (Dec., 1869.) Whether or not, on the transfer of a case from a state court to a federal court, under the twelfth section of the Judiciary Act, a new declaration should be filed, is a question of practice, and not a subject for error. Insurance Co. v. Weide, 9 Wall. 677.
47. (Dec., 1870.) An application to an inferior court to supply a lost record, being matter addressed to its discretion, is not a subject for writ of error. Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 672.
48. If, after a lost record of a case, where judgment below has been affirmed, is supplied in the inferior court, final process issue in accordance with the mandate sent to such court on the affirmance, the action of the court in granting such process will not be reviewed here. 15.
49. (Dec., 1871.) The granting or refusing to grant a motion for a new trial, resting wholly in the discretion of the court where it is made, the action of such court is not ground for error. Insurance Co. v. Barton, 13 Wall. 603.
50. (Dec., 1871.) When to a declaration two special pleas are interposed, each setting up substantially the same defence, and by the replication to one, issue is joined on the merits, and by the replication to the other, an immaterial issue is formell, and upon the trial all the issues are found for the plaintiff, it is a matter of discretion in the court, whether to arrest the judgment, for the verdict on the immaterial issue, and award a repleader, with which this court will not interfere. Erskine v, Hornbach, 14 Wall. 614.
51. (Dec., 1872.) A suit was brought in a Circuit Court, properly as regarded the citizenship of the parties. The defendant died, and his representatives were made defendants, nothing being said as to their citizenship. On motion to dismiss, because the plaintiff and defendants were citizens of the same state, the Circuit Court refused the motion, but on what ground did not appear; the record not showing whether any evidence had been taken on the matter, and recording only that the defendants “ reserved their exception to the decision of the court." Held, that, as the record stood, there was no case that this court could examine. Kearney v. Denn, 15 Wall. 51.
52. (Oct., 1873.) Although a greater latitude is allowable in the cross-examination of a party who places himself on the stand, than in that of other witnesses, still, where the crossexamination is directed to matters not inquired about in the principal examination, its course and extent are very largely subject to the control of the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion; and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on a writ of error. Rea v. Missouri, 17 Wall. 532.
53. (Oct., 1873.) The only remedy for surprise is a motion for new trial; and the refusal of a court below to grant one is not reviewable here. Mulhall v. Keenan, 18 Wall. 313.
54. (Oct., 1875.) The judgment of a Circuit Court, reversing that of a District Court, and ordering a new trial, is