Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 U.S. 433

4 L. Ed. 428

3 Wheat. 433

Houston v. Moore

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Feb. 28th.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1818-02-28

This was an action of trespass, brought by the pláihtiff in error against the defendant in error, for. levyikg a fine ordered to be collected by' the, sentence' 6t a court martial, under an act of the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania¿ which was- alleged t as having-been improvider.Uy issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act, c;h..2Q. the decision of the state court, not being a “final judgment” in the cause—

2 counsel of record

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Consul” · Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Beyond Seas”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 5–0 · Decided 1818-02-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba (1976)

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

80181818201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1(Practice.)

¶2fha court has no' jurisdiction under the 25th section of the judiciary sett' of 1789, cb. 20; linio» the judgment, or decree, óf th* etatecourt.be ■¿final judgment or decree. A judgment reversing that of jan inferió* Court, and awarding a vtnirk facias de stove is not a final'judgment.’

¶3Error to the supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania.

¶4This was an action of trespass, brought by the pláihtiff in error against the defendant in error, for. levyikg a fine ordered to be collected by' the, sentence' 6t a court martial, under an act of the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania¿ which was- alleged t<5; be repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States. The suit was.commenced in the court of, common pleas for the county of Lancaster,'in which court a trial was had, and the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the plaintiffjfbn which *434judgment was rendered.’ The cause was carried <o supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania, by writ of error, where the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed, and the cause remanded to that (Court, with directions to award a venire' facias de mito. The plaintiff then sued out of a writ of “error, to bring the-cause to this court.

¶5Ms. C, J. Ingerspll moved to dismiss the writ of error,

¶6as having-been improvider.Uy issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act, c;h..2Q. the decision of the state court, not being a “final judgment” in the cause—

¶7Mr. Hopkins, contra.

¶8Mr. OB. Marshall

¶9tíenrered thebpinion of tlie ■ ebttrt. The appellate jurisdiction of this, court, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, ch. 20. extends only, to final j udgment or decree of the highest courts Ojf law oí equity in the cases specified. This is nut a |jaal judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania. ' ’íhe cause-may yét be finally determined in favour of the plain# Sn the state, court;

¶10Writ of error xP . issed. .

¶11Jun.GMEN*. This cause came on to Be Beard on th? -transcript of the record of the supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for'the Lancaster district. OnNxáminatíon Whereof, it is adjudged! aiid Ordered, that the writ of error in this cause be and the same, is hereby dismissed, this- court not haw*435ing jurisdiction in said causs, there not having been a final judgment in said suit, in the said supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.a

/16/us/433 · .json · Public domain