Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 U.S. 187

Hampton v. Rouse

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1871

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1871-12

■ This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. It appeared from the record that Wade Hampton, Wade Hampton, Jr., and J. M. Howell, were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly.

1 counsel of record

Relies on Philip v. Nock

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Decided 1871-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1933

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

801871188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

¶1In a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join. The omission of one or more is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed; a matter often held.

¶2■ This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

¶3It appeared from the record that Wade Hampton, Wade Hampton, Jr., and J. M. Howell, were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly. The judgment was against the defendant in the singular, but, as the verdict was joint, this court considered it obvious that this was a mere clerical error, and that the judgment, doubtless, followed the verdict.

¶4*188Wade Hampton alono prosecuted the writ of error, and there appeared to have been no summons and severance or other equivalent proceeding.*

¶5Mr. P. Phillips, in support of the motion ; Mr. W. W. Boyce, contra.

¶7The CHIEF JUSTICE:

¶8It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join; and that the omission of one or more, without such proceeding, is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed. The motion in the present case must, therefore, be

¶9Granted.

/80/us/187 · .json · Public domain