Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Kanouse v. Martin, 55 U.S. 23 (1852)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the case of Cornelius Kanouse v. John M. Martin regarding a motion to dismiss a writ of error for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court overruled the motion to dismiss, finding that the case met the criteria under the 25th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act for the Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court. Specifically, the construction of an act of Congress (the 12th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act) was drawn into question in the state court, and the state court decided against the right claimed under the act by the plaintiff in error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Kanouse v. Martin, 55 U.S. 23 (1852)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the case of Cornelius Kanouse v. John M. Martin regarding a motion to dismiss a writ of error for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court overruled the motion to dismiss, finding that the case met the criteria under the 25th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act for the Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court. Specifically, the construction of an act of Congress (the 12th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act) was drawn into question in the state court, and the state court decided against the right claimed under the act by the plaintiff in error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1852-12-21 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 55 U.S. 23, 14 How. 23

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the case of Cornelius Kanouse v. John M. Martin regarding a motion to dismiss a writ of error for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court overruled the motion to dismiss, finding that the case met the criteria under the 25th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act for the Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court. Specifically, the construction of an act of Congress (the 12th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act) was drawn into question in the state court, and the state court decided against the right claimed under the act by the plaintiff in error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    6 views2 pages

    Kanouse v. Martin, 55 U.S. 23 (1852)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the case of Cornelius Kanouse v. John M. Martin regarding a motion to dismiss a writ of error for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court overruled the motion to dismiss, finding that the case met the criteria under the 25th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act for the Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court. Specifically, the construction of an act of Congress (the 12th section of the 1789 Judiciary Act) was drawn into question in the state court, and the state court decided against the right claimed under the act by the plaintiff in error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    55 U.S.

    23
    14 How. 23
    14 L.Ed. 310

    CORNELIUS KANOUSE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,


    v.
    JOHN M. MARTIN.
    December Term, 1852

    A MOTION was made by Mr. Martin, to dismiss this case, which was
    argued by himself and Mr. Garr.
    The circumstances, upon which the motion was based, are stated in the
    opinion of the court.
    Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

    This is a writ of error, directed to the Superior Court of the City of New York,
    and a motion has been made by the defendant in error to dismiss it for want of
    jurisdiction.

    The record shows that a suit was brought by the defendant in error against the
    plaintiff, in the State Court above mentioned; the former being a citizen of New
    York, and the latter a citizen of New Jersey. The plaintiff in error, at the time of
    entering his appearance in the State Court, filed his petition, stating the
    citizenship of the parties, and praying for the removal of the cause for trial into
    the next Circuit Court, to be held in the district where the said suit was pending;
    and, at the same time, offered good and sufficient security for his entering in
    such court, on the first day of the session, copies of the process against him,
    and also for his then appearing and entering special bail in the cause.

    The State Court, however, refused to permit the cause to be removed; and after
    the petition was filed and the bond given, proceeded in the case, and finally
    gave judgment against the plaintiff in error for the sum of money mentioned in
    the record. Various proceedings, it appears, were afterwards had in the
    appellate courts of the State, in relation to this judgment, but the decision in
    these courts was also against the plaintiff in error; and the judgment rendered in

    the Superior Court of the City of New York, still remains there and is in full
    force, if that court had jurisdiction of the case after the application to remove it.
    4

    The case then, as it stands on the motion, is this: The plaintiff in error claimed
    the right to remove this cause from the State Court to the Circuit Court of the
    United States, under the 12th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The right
    claimed was denied by the State Court, which retained the case, and proceeded
    to give a final judgment against him.

    It is therefore precisely one of the cases enumerated in the 25th section of the
    act of 1789, in which jurisdiction is conferred upon this court, and in which the
    judgment of the State Court may be reviewed upon writ of error. For the
    construction of an act of Congress was drawn in question, and the decision of
    the court was against the right claimed under it, by the plaintiff in error.

    As to the authority of the Superior Court of the City of New York to retain the
    case, and the validity or invalidity of its proceedings and judgment, after the
    motion to remove; that question, according to the practice of the court, will
    stand for hearing when the case is reached in the regular call of the docket. But
    the motion to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction in this court, is overruled.

    Order.
    7

    On consideration of the motion, made on a prior day of the present term of this
    court, to dismiss this writ of error, and of the argument of counsel thereupon
    had, as well in support of as against the motion, it is now here ordered by the
    court that the said motion be, and the same is hereby, overruled.

    You might also like