Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 U.S. 582

Miller v. McKenzie

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1870

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1870-12

Pitzer Miller brought suit in the 'court just named against Larkin McKenzie, James Hamer, Joseph Hamer, and Eze- • kiel Wall, to recover the value of several bales of cotton. Such proceedings were had that a judgment was rendered for the defendants, whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error: the writ reciting that the proceedings were between “ Peter Miller, Larkin McKenzie, and others.”

2 counsel of record

Relies on Baltimore v. Baltimore Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Opinion by Samuel Nelson · Decided 1870-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1898

2 state decisions

50187018801890decided

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 →

¶1A writ of error dismissed as defective in respect to parties, where the suit was against four persons by name, and the writ recited that it was against two which it named, “ and others.”

¶2Error to the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

¶3Pitzer Miller brought suit in the 'court just named against Larkin McKenzie, James Hamer, Joseph Hamer, and Eze- • kiel Wall, to recover the value of several bales of cotton.

¶4*583Such proceedings were had that a judgment was rendered for the defendants, whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error: the writ reciting that the proceedings were between “ Peter Miller, Larkin McKenzie, and others.”

¶5Mr. P. Phillips,

¶6on the part of the defendants, now moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

¶7Mr. T. Wilson, contra.

¶8Mr. Justice NELSON

¶9delivered the opinion of the court.

¶10It appears, from an inspection of the record, that the writ of error is defective in respect to the parties. It is therein recited that the proceedings are between Pitzer Miller and Larkin McKenzie, and others. This defect has been held so many -times in this court as fatal to its jurisdiction that it need be but mentioned to require a dismissal of the case.

¶11Motion granted.

/77/us/582 · .json · Public domain