CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


RANDALL V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 261 U. S. 252 (1923)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 261 U. S. 252 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Randall v. Board of Commissioners, 261 U.S. 252 (1923)

Randall v. Board of Commissioners

of Tippecanoe County, Indiana

No. 274

Argued January 25, 1923

Decided February 19, 1923

261 U.S. 252

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

Syllabus

A writ of error to the highest court of a state must be dismissed when the judgment is one of an. intermediate court which the highest court has declined to review for want of jurisdiction. Writ of error to review 131 N.E. 776 dismissed.

Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Indiana when, clearly it should have been to the state appellate court.

The action was brought in the Superior Court for Tippecanoe County. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. An appeal was allowed to the supreme court, but that court, of its own motion, entered an order transferring the cause to the appellate court for want of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court thereupon took the case, received the briefs of counsel, heard oral arguments, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. A petition for rehearing was submitted and denied. Plaintiffs in error then applied to the supreme court for an order to vacate its former order of transfer or, in the alternative, for a writ of error coram nobis, which the supreme court denied.

It therefore appears that the supreme court refused to take the case on appeal for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment of the highest court of the state in which a decision chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 261 U. S. 253

in the suit could be had, Judicial Code § 237, is that of the appellate court to which the writ should have been directed.

The writ of error must therefore be dismissed on the authority of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hughes, 203 U. S. 505; Lane v. Wallace, 131 U.S. Appendix, CCXIX; Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 225 U. S. 269; Second National Bank v. First National Bank, 242 U. S. 600; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530.

Dismissed.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED