West v. Barnes

Last updated
West v. Barnes
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued August 2, 1791
Decided August 3, 1791
Full case nameWest v. Barnes
Citations2 U.S. 401 ( more )
2 Dall. 401
Holding
The Court held that "Writs of error to remove causes to this court from inferior courts, can regularly issue only from the clerk's office of the court."
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
John Blair Jr.  · James Iredell
Case opinion
MajorityUnanimous

West v. Barnes, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 401 (1791), was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. [1] [2] Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791) was docketed prior to West v. Barnes but settled before the Court heard the case: West was argued on August 2 and decided on August 3, 1791. Collet v. Collet (1792) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard. [3] Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in West v. Barnes, which were published in various newspapers around the country at the time, but he published an abbreviated summary of the decision.

Contents

The Court ultimately decided the case on procedural grounds, holding that a writ of error (an appeal) must be issued within ten days by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States as required by federal statute, and not by a lower court located closer to the plaintiff in Rhode Island. As a result of this case, Congress ultimately changed this procedure with the ninth section of the Process and Compensation Act of 1792, allowing circuit courts to issue these writs, thereby assisting citizens living far away from the capital. [4]

Background

This was one of the earliest potential cases of judicial review in the United States where the Court had the opportunity to overturn a Rhode Island state statute regarding lodging payment of a debt in paper currency in fulfillment of a contract. The court did not exercise judicial review in deference to the legislature. The court ultimately decided against William West, the petitioner, on procedural grounds. [3] [5]

William West was a farmer, anti-federalist leader, revolutionary war general, and judge from Scituate, Rhode Island. He owed a mortgage on his farm from a failed molasses deal in 1763 to the Jenckes family from Providence. He made payments on the mortgage for twenty years, and in 1785 asked the state for permission to conduct a lottery to help pay off the remainder. Due to his service during the Revolution, the state granted him permission. Much of the proceeds were paid in paper currency instead of gold or silver. West tendered payment in the paper currency as allowed by state statute, "lodging" the funds with a state judge to be collected within ten days. [4]

David L. Barnes, a Jenckes heir, and well-known attorney and later federal judge, brought suit in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction asserting that gold or silver payment was required, and refusing the paper currency. Despite lack of formal training, West represented himself pro se in the circuit court in June 1791 before Chief Justice John Jay, Associate Justice William Cushing, and Henry Marchant. They rejected his arguments. West then pursued appeal to the Supreme Court on a writ of error, attempting to comply with all statutory directions. West was unable to make the journey to Philadelphia to represent himself, so he engaged William Bradford, Jr., Pennsylvania's attorney general, to represent him. On appeal, Barnes focused on the procedural irregularities. Barnes asserted that the writ had been signed and sealed only by the clerk of the circuit court in Rhode Island instead of by the Supreme Court clerk, which he claimed as necessary. This was asserted despite the fact that West would have had to make an arduous journey in 1791 to Philadelphia within ten days to do so. West lost on this procedural issue and was eventually forced to relinquish his farm. [4]

Opinions

The court's full opinion was extensively covered by period newspapers as no official court reporter was yet published in 1791, and the seriatim opinions were republished in the newspapers and are currently accessible in James R. Perry's The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Volume 6, "West v. Barnes," pp. 3-27. . Each of the five justices issued a seriatim opinion regarding the writ of error, and the justices unsuccessfully looked to common law precedent from state courts and pre-Revolution English case law including Coke and Blackstone's treatises. Several of the justices expressed their reservations about the federal statute and suggested alternatives for filing within the ten-day statutory period, but nevertheless each justice refused to expand the meaning of the statute believing that only Congress had the power to do so. [4] In summation the Dallas reporter quoted John Jay and summed up the case holding as follows:

West, Plaintiff in error, v. Barnes et al.

On the first day of the term, Bradford presented to the court, a writ, purporting to be a writ of error, issued out of the office of the clerk of the circuit court for Rhode Island district, directed to that court, and commanding a return of the judgment and proceedings rendered by them in this cause: And thereupon he moved for a rule, that the defendant rejoin to the errors assigned in this cause.

Barnes, one of the defendants, (a counsellor of the court) objected to the validity of the writ, that it had issued out of the wrong office: and, after argument,

THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, That writs of error to remove causes to this court from inferior courts, can regularly issue only from the clerk's office of the court.

Motion refused. [6]

Aftermath

Justice James Iredell was upset by the governing statute and wrote to President Washington to change the law, which allowed only the clerk of the Supreme Court to issue writs of error. The Process and Compensation Act of 1792 altered the law to prevent such hardships for future litigants. [7]

Several months after the decision, on November 9, 1791, Barnes brought another suit of ejectment to eject West from the mortgaged farm. He filed suit in the Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island. Justice Jay, Justice Cushing and Judge Henry Marchant held the plea bad for a second time. They decided that William West lodged payment of his debt with a Rhode Island judge on September 16, and so Barnes had ten days to collect it, according to the state statute. The Rhode Island "lodging" Act was, however, suspended on the 19th of that month and so the ten-day period could not fully occur since only three days had passed and was thus not conformable to the statute. Barnes eventually won the ejectment case, but he had difficulty ejecting West's family from the farm, as West had sold the farm to a son-in-law. West's estate continued to be disputed after his death, resulting in the First Circuit decision West v. Randall in 1820.

According to Cotter v. Alabama, "Prior to 1791 it was the practice that a writ of error could only issue from the office of the clerk of the supreme court. In Mussina v. Cavazos, ([73, US 355], 6 Wall. 355), it is stated that a decision to that effect in West v. Barnes... led to the enactment of the ninth section of the act of 1792, being section 1004 of the Revised Statutes..." (Cotter v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 61 F. 747, 748 (6th Cir. 1894)).

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States, a state supreme court is the highest court in the state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts.

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the establishment of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. The Court, in a 4-1 decision, ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina, stating that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. The case was superseded in 1795 by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution which was considered binding by the Court in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798). The Supreme Court formally established sovereign immunity in federal courts in Hans v. Louisiana (1890) and state courts in Alden v. Maine (1999) using the Eleventh Amendment, effectively overturning their decision.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

Writ Formal written order issued by a court

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, subpoenas, and Certiorari are common types of writ, but many forms exist and have existed.

The writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term "coram nobis" is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

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.

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Supreme Court procedures

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and the Court's own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

William West was an American militia general in the American Revolutionary War, Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Deputy Governor of Rhode Island, and anti-federalist leader. West also was a party in the first U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1791, West v. Barnes.

The Judiciary Act of 1793 is a United States federal statute, enacted on March 2, 1793. It established a number of regulations related to court procedures.

Willis Van Devanter American judge

Willis Van Devanter was an American lawyer who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1911 to 1937. He was a staunch conservative and was regarded as a part of the Four Horsemen, the conservative block which dominated the Supreme Court during the 1930s.

Collet v. Collet, 2 U.S. 294 , was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that was the earliest appellate case docketed although it was never heard by the Court. Van Staphorst v. Maryland was the first case docketed with the court. West v. Barnes was the first case decided by the court.

Criminal law in the Marshall Court

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

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.

Certificate of division Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

An in-chambers opinion is an opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court, rendered on an issue that the court's rules or procedures allow a single member of the court to decide. The judge is said to decide the matter "in chambers" because the decision can be issued from the judge's chambers without a formal court proceeding.

Evans v. Hettich, 20 U.S. 453 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a witness's testimony could not be objected to merely because the witness suffered from "fits of derangement", as long as the witness was sane when he testified.

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the writ of coram nobis as the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.

Pennsylvania High Court of Errors and Appeals

The Pennsylvania High Court of Errors and Appeals was a public tribunal existing from 1780 to 1808; it was the court of last resort in the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania General Assembly created it during the American Revolution to take the place of the British Appeals Committee of the Privy Council. The High Court heard cases from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and other lower state courts. Eventually the General Assembly voted to abolish the High Court, effective in 1808, and transfer its powers to the state supreme court.

References

  1. ↑ Timothy W. Larson, "West v. Barnes: The First Supreme Court Decision", Rhode Island Bar Association Journal, July/Aug 2010, pg. 13-15 (59-AUG RIBJ 13)
  2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court Records of Earliest caselaw PDF (accessed April 24, 2009)
  3. 1 2 Timothy W. Larson, "West v. Barnes: The First Supreme Court Decision", Rhode Island Bar Association Journal, July/Aug 2010, pg. 13-15
  4. 1 2 3 4 James R. Perry, The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Volume 6, "West v. Barnes," pp. 3-27.
  5. ↑ Earliest Cases of Judicial Review of State Legislation by Federal Courts, by Charles Warren, The Yale Law Journal, 1922, pg. 22-23. (accessed through JSTOR)
  6. ↑ Reports of cases ruled and adjudged in the several courts of the United States, and of Pennsylvania: held at the seat of the federal government by Alexander James Dallas, Frederick Charles Brightly, United States. Supreme Court, United States, Edition: 2, Published by Printed for the reporter at the Aurora Office, 1906, Item notes: v. 2, pg. 401 (348)
  7. ↑ The United States Supreme Court: the pursuit of justice, by Christopher L. Tomlins, Houghton Mifflin Company, American Bar Foundation Edition: illustrated Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005 ISBN   0-618-32969-2, ISBN   978-0-618-32969-4, pg. 37
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.