Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

105 U.S. 235

Hecht v. Boughton

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 1, 1881

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1881-10

<p>An appeal is the only form of proceeding by which this court can review the judgment or the decree of a territorial court in a case where.-there was not a trial by jury.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We are not to consider the testimony in any case. Upon a writ of error we are confined to the bill of exceptions, •or questions of law otherwise presented by the record; and upon an appeal, to the statement of facts and rulings certified by the court below. The facts set forth in the statement, which must come up with the appeal, are conclusive on us. Under these circumstances, the form of proceeding to get a review is not of so much importance as certainty about what is to be done.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Grayson v. Lynch, Marshall v. Burtis

“that on appeal, instead of the evidence at large, a statement of the facts in 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 a transcript of the proceedings and judgment or decree.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Grayson v. Lynch

Relies on Stringfellow v. Cain

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Decided 1881-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1967 · most notably William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. Hutchins (1907), Murphy v. Ramsey (1885)

3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

210188118901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1An appeal is the only form of proceeding by which this court can review the judgment or the decree of a territorial court in a case where.-there was not a trial by jury.

¶2Motion to dismiss a writ, of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming.

¶3Mr. Thomas Turner in support of the motion,.

¶4Mr. JE. W. Mann, contra.

¶5Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶6delivered the opinion of the court.

¶7This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming, to bring up-for review the. judgment' in a suit, where there.-was not a trial by jury. A motion is now made to-dismiss, because the case should -have -been brought here by appeal, and not by writ.of error.

¶8The second section of the act of April 7, 1874, c. 80 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 27), is as follows: —

■ “That the appellate jurisdiction-of the Supreme United States · Case Law">Court of the United States over the judgments and decrees of said territorial courts in' cases of trial b.y 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 át 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 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 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.”

¶9*236This statute seems to us conclusive of the present motion. In allowing legal and equitable remedies to be sought in the same action before the territorial courts, Congress saw fit to establish an inflexible rule by which it could be determined whether a case should be brought here from those courts for review by writ of error or appeal, and provided that cases tried by a jury should come om writ of error, and all others by appeal. This makes the form of proceeding depend on the single fact of whether there has been or not, a trial by jury. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610. We are not to consider the testimony in any case. Upon a writ of error we are confined to the bill of'exceptions, or questions- of law otherwise presented by the record; anjd upon an appeal, to the statement of' facts and rulings certified by the court below. The facts set forth in the statement which must come up. with the appeal, are conclusive on.us. Under these circumstances, the form of proceeding to get a review is- not of so much importance as certainty about what is to be done.

¶10We cannot agree with counsel for the plaintiff in error that the-act qf Congress was intended to apply only to those Territories where the distinction between suits- at law and suits in equity had actually been abolished. From the preamble it may fairly_.be inferred that.the- object of the legislation was to prevent embarrassments growing out of the mingling of jurisdictions ; Nut the statute as it stands clearly applies to all territorial courts. -

¶11Motion granted.

/105/us/235 · .json · Public domain