Richards v. Mackall

Last updated

Richards v. Mackall
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Submitted December 1, 1884
Decided March 2, 1885
Full case nameRichards v. Mackall
Citations113 U.S. 539 ( more )
5 S. Ct. 535; 28 L. Ed. 1132
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinion
MajorityWaite, joined by unanimous

Richards v. Mackall, 113 U.S. 539 (1885), was an appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to the High Court on whether or not an appeal from that Court to this Court may be allowed by that Court sitting in the special term. [1]

Contents

Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia consists of one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. Rev.Stat.Dist.Col. § 750; 20 Stat. 320, c. 99, § 1. The law provides for both special and general terms of the court, and for an appeal from the special to the general term, but the judgments and decrees, when rendered, are, whether they be at general or special term, the judgments and decrees of the supreme court. Rev.Stat.Dist.Col. §§ 753, 772. A general term is held by three justices, two, however, constituting a quorum, and a special term by one. Rev.Stat.Dist.Col. §§ 754, 757; 20 Stat. 320, c. 99, § 2. By § 705 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended February 25, 1879, 20 Stat. 320, c. 99, § 4, the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in cases where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $2,500, may be brought to this Court for review

"upon writ of error or appeal, in the same manner and under the same regulations as are provided by law in cases of writs of error on judgments, or appeals from decrees rendered in a circuit court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District at a general term held by Chief Justice Cartter and Associate Justices Hagner and Cox, which began on the first Monday in April 1884, and ended July 5, 1884. The transcript contains the following:

[Filed July 8, 1884]
SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Brooke Mackall, Jr.v. 8,118 Eq. Alfred Richards et al.
And now comes the said defendant, Alfred Richards, and appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decree of the general term passed July 5, 1884, in the above cause against him.
WM. B. WEBB for defendant, Richards
The above appeal is allowed this 8th day of July 1884.
By the court.
MCARTHUR, Justice

Then follows a citation in proper form, signed by the chief justice of the court, bearing the same date as the order allowing the appeal. This citation was served October 7, 1884. Next in the transcript is the following:

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia the 10th day of July 1884
Brooke Mackall, Jr. v. No. 8, 118, Eq. In Error
Alfred Richards et al.

Then follows a supersedeas bond in due form, and at the foot these words:

Approved July 11, 1884 MCARTHUR, Justice. The appeal was docketed in this Court on the fifteenth of October, 1884.
The grounds of the motion may be stated thus:
  1. The citation was not signed by the justice who approved the bond,
  2. The citation was not served in time, and
  3. Mrs. Richards and Leonard Mackall, who were defendants below, have not joined in the appeal. §§ 999, 1012, and 705 of the Revised Statutes, taken together, provide in effect that when there is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to this Court, the citation may be signed by any justice of that court. Such an appeal is to be taken under the same regulations as appeals from the circuit court. § 705. On appeals from the circuit court a judge of that court may sign the citation. § 999. Clearly, therefore, when the appeal is from the Supreme Court of the District, a justice of that court may do the same thing.

The transcript in this case shows that the appeal was allowed by the court, undoubtedly sitting in special term. This, we think, may be done. An appeal in a proper case is a matter of right. The decree appealed from was the decree of the supreme court, and the court, while sitting in special term, was still the supreme court, and, as such, capable of allowing an appeal to this Court from one of its final decrees, though rendered at general term. As the general term had closed, it was quite proper to apply to the court sitting in special term for the allowance of the appeal. The allowance by the court while in session at special term would not do away with the necessity of a citation because the allowance would not have been made at the same term in which the decree was rendered. Yeaton v. Lenox, 7 Pet. 221; Railroad v. Blair, 100 U. S. 662. As the allowance was made by the court, it was quite regular for the chief justice to sign the citation. The transcript also shows that the bond was approved by the court. It seems to have been presented to the court on 10 July and approved the next day. What was done was, according to the transcript, "In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia."

Even if the citation was not served in time, which we do not decide, the failure to serve will not work a dismissal of the appeal. Dayton v. Lash, 94 U. S. 112.

The last ground of the motion to dismiss was not relied upon in argument. The effect of what has been done was to allow a separate appeal by Alfred Richards.

The motions were overruled.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. They hear appeals of cases from the United States district courts and some U.S. administrative agencies, and their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Case citation</span> System for uniquely identifying individual rulings of a court

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit</span> Current United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit</span> Current United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. It has the smallest geographical jurisdiction of any of the U.S. courts of appeals, and it covers only one district court: the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It meets at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, DC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Texas</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Texas for civil appeals

The Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters in the U.S. state of Texas. A different court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is the court of last resort in criminal matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It is designated as the court of record by the Constitution of Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Judges and a Chief Justice.

The Judiciary Act of 1925, also known as the Judge's Bill or Certiorari Act, was an act of the United States Congress that sought to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Court on the Judiciary</span>

The Oklahoma Court on the Judiciary is one of the two independent courts in the Oklahoma judiciary and has exclusive jurisdiction in adjudicating discipline and hearing cases involving the removal of a judge from office, excluding the Oklahoma Supreme Court, exercising judicial power under the Oklahoma Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2002 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The 2002 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 7, 2002, and concluded October 5, 2003. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued.

Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States, 113 U.S. 261 (1885), regarded a suit brought by the United States against a railroad company, Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway, to recover monies paid for delivery of United States mail in Tennessee from March 31 to June 8, 1861.

Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U.S. 545 (1885), was a case brought in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana to dismiss a writ of error.

Mackall is a surname. It is derived from the Gaelic MacCathail, meaning "son of Cathal". Early records of the name include M'Kawele in the late fourteenth-century, Makcaill in the early sixteenth century, and M'Call in the late sixteenth century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Syria</span>

The judicial system of Syria is a synthesis of Ottoman, French, and Islamic laws. The civil, commercial and criminal codes are primarily based on the French legal practices. Promulgated in 1949, those laws have special provisions sanctioned to limit application of customary law among beduin and religious minorities. The Islamic religious courts continue to function in some parts of the country, but their jurisdiction is limited to issues of personal status, such as marriage, divorce, paternity, custody of children, and inheritance. Nonetheless, in 1955 a personal code pertaining to many aspects of personal status was developed. This law modified and modernized sharia by improving the status of women and clarifying the laws of inheritance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988</span> US federal law

The Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 is an act of Congress that eliminated appeals as of right from state court decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the Act took effect, in most cases, the only avenue by which a litigant could obtain review of most lower court decisions was through the writ of certiorari, which was granted at the discretion of the Supreme Court, rather than available to the litigant as a matter of right.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U.S. 235 (1922), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with civil procedure and the nature of taking an appeal from the United States District Court.

References

  1. ↑ Richards v. Mackall, 113 U.S. 539 (1885).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.