Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

§ 216. on appeal.—That the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over the judgments and decrees of said territorial courts in cases of trial by jury shall be exercised by writ of error, and in all other cases by appeal, according to such rules and regulations as to form and modes of proceeding as the said Supreme Court have prescribed or may hereafter prescribe; provided, that on appeal, instead of the evidence at large, a statement of the facts of the case in the nature of a special verdict, and also the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of evidence when excepted to, shall be made and certified by the court below, and transmitted to the Supreme Court, together with the transcript of the proceedings and judgment or decree; but no appellate proceedings in said Supreme Court, heretofore taken upon any such judgment or decree, shall be invalidated by reason of being instituted by writ of error or by appeal; and provided further, that the appellate court may make any order in any case heretofore appealed, which may be necessary to save the rights of the parties; and that this act shall not apply to cases now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States where the record has already been filed. (18 U. S. Stats. 27; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 12.)

Territorial courts-Procedure

Note. To entitle to an appeal, the case must be one tried by a jury. (Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619.) If the territorial supreme court affirms the judgment, it adopts the findings as its own for the purpose of an appeal (Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619); but if it reverses the judgment, it should make other findings, so that the case may be taken on appeal. (Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610.)

$217.

When a Territory becomes a ate after judgment or decree in tertorial court. -In all cases where the judgment decree of any court of a Territory might be reewed by the Supreme Court on writ of error or peal, such writ of error or appeal may be taken, thin the time and in the manner provided by v, notwithstanding such Territory has, after such dgment or decree, been admitted as a State; and e Supreme Court shall direct the mandate to ch court as the nature of the writ of error or apal requires. (Rev. Stats. sec. 703.)

It rests with Congress to declare how the judgments of ritorial courts shall be carried into execution, or rewed upon appeal or writ of error (Hunt v. Palao, 4 w. 589; Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235); but concurrent islation, State and Federal, is necessary in respect to es pending in the Supreme Court for review to enable Supreme Court to send down the mandate for further oceedings in the proper tribunal. (Benner v. Porter, 9 w. 235.) After a Territory has been admitted as a te, no writ of error or appeal lies from the Territorial art without the aid of some act of Congress. (Hunt v. lao, 4 How. 589; Shephard v. Wilson, 5 How. 210; Nulty v. Batty, 10 How. 72; Preston v. Bracken, 10 w. 81. See Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160.)

§ 218. Judgments and decrees of disict courts in cases transferred from erritorial courts. The judgments or deees of any district court, in cases transferred it from the superior court of any Territory, on the admission of such Territory as a State, der sections five hundred and sixty-seven and e hundred and sixty-eight, may be reviewed d reversed or affirmed upon writs of error ed out of, or appeals tåken to, the Supreme

Court, in the same manner as if such judgments or decrees had been rendered in said superior court of such Territory. And the man

dates and all writs necessary to the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases shall be directed to such district court, which shall cause the same to be duly executed and obeyed. (Rev. Stats. sec. 704. See sections 567 and 569.)

§ 219.

Judgments and decrees of supreme court of District of Columbia.

The final judgment or decree of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, in any case where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the value of twenty-five hundred dollars, may be re-examined and revised or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon writ of error or appeal, in the same manner and under the same regulations as are provided in cases of writs of error on judgments or appeals from decrees rendered in a circuit court. (Rev. Stats. sec. 705.)

The amount was increased from one thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars by Act of Feb. 25, 1879. (20 U. S. Stats. 320; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 419.)

Writs of error.-A writ of error lies to a judgment entered on an agreed statement (U. S. v. Eliason, 16 Peters, 291); or to a judgment awarding a peremptory mandamus to restore a party to office (Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelwright, 7 Wheat. 534); or a judgment removing a party from office (U. S. v. Addison, 22 How. 174); or to a judgment for condemnation of land (Railroad Co. v. Church, 18 W all. 62); or to a judgment quashing an inquisition of damages (Custiss v. Georgetown & A. Turnpike Co., 6 Cranch, 233; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Trustees, 91 U. S. 127); or to a judgment in favor of defendant on a demurrrer

the evidence (Bank v. Smith, 11 Wheat. 171); but not ter pleading to the merits after demurrer to a plea in atement is sustained. (Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 8; Bell v. Railroad Co., 4 Wall. 598.) So if a plaintiff plies de novo after demurrer sustained he waives all right a writ of error. (Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 25.) party may sue out a writ of error to a judgment rendered ainst him in favor of a corporation, although the State law corporating it provides that no writ of error shall be alwed. (Young v. Bank, 4 Cranch, 384.) The regulaons for removal on writs of error or appeal are the same from circuit courts. (Thompson v. Biggs, 5 Wall. 663.) writ of error will not lie to a decision upon a motion for new trial (Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch, 187); or a refusal to quash a ca. sa. issued upon a judgment certid from a justice of the peace (Mountz v. Hodgson, 4 anch, 324); or to a refusal to grant a motion to set de a judgment (Connor v. Peugh, 18 How. 394); or to udgment of supreme court of District of Columbia in a minal case (U. S. v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 159); or to an order ashing an inquisition of damages in condemnation of land d ordering a new inquisition. (Ches. & O. Canal Co. v. nion Bank, 8 Peters, 259.) A tenant in possession who not a party to an action of ejectment cannot sue out a it of error to a judgment against a casual ejector. (Conr v. Peugh, 18 How. 394.) A writ of error does not lie a certificate of the findings of a jury in the trial of an ue sent from the orphans' court, although exceptions may ve been obtained (Van Ness v. Van Ness, 6 How. 62; own v. Wiley, 4 Wall. 165); or when an issue is sent to ury to determine who is entitled to letters of administion. (Van Ness v. Van Ness, 6 How. 62.)

Appeals.-An appeal lies from a decree for the sale of operty under a mortgage (Ray v. Law, 3 Cranch, 179); from an order dismissing a petition seeking to revoke e probate of a will (Carter v. Cutting, 8 Cranch, 251); t not from an interlocutory order dissolving an injuncon (Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51); or a judgment resing to appoint appellant guardian of a minor (De Kraft Barney, 2 Black, 704; Ritchie v. Mauro, 2 Peters, 243); from an order awarding the writ of habere facias posses

sionem to a purchaser at a sale under decree of court. (Callan v. May, 2 Black, 541.) A purchaser cannot appeal if a decree setting aside an order confirming a sale directs another sale of the property to be had. (Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U. S. 246.) The allowance of commissions to an executor is discretionary, and no appeal lies from an order thereon. (Nichols v. Hodges, 1 Peters, 562; West v. Smith, How. 406.)

Amount. The value of the matter in dispute is determined by the judgment, without adding interest and costs, and if it is less than twenty-five hundred dollars the case will be dismissed. (Pierce v. Cox, 9 Wall. 786; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398; Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112.) In an action of replevin the value of the article replevied is the matter in dispute, and must exceed twenty-five hundred dollars. (Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheat. 527.) The difference between the sum claimed and the amount recovered must exceed twenty-five hundred dollars (Wise v. Columbia Turnpike Co., 7 Cranch, 276); but if the verdict is for the defendant, the sum claimed in the declaration is the amount in dispute, and must exceed twenty-five hundred dollars. (Scott v. Lunt, 6 Peters, 349; U. S. v. McDaniel, 6 Peters, 634.) An appeal will not lie from a decree dismissing a bill for the sale of a lot under a deed of trust to secure one thousand dollars, although the lot is worth more than twenty-five hundred dollars, and the real question is whether the debtor is entitled to the lot. (Farmers' Bank v. Hoof, 7 Peters, 168.) When several complainants join in one bill and obtain a joint decree, the defendant may appeal, although the amount claimed by each is less than twenty-five hundred dollars (Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112); but if a complainant joins distinct causes of action against distinct parties, he cannot appeal from a decree dismissing the bill if the claim against each is less than twenty-five hundred dollars, although the aggregate exceeds that amount. (Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147.)

Reversal or affirmance. If defendant plead nonassumpsit in an action sounding in tort, the judgment will be reversed (Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131); and in such case the cause will be remanded. (Garland v. Davis,

« AnteriorContinuar »