Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Hecht v. Boughton

105 U.S. 235

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1882-03-20
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. This 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. The 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 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…

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hecht v. Boughton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
20 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction over Territorial Courts Under the Act of April 7, 1874, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over judgments and decrees of territorial courts is exercised by writ of error in cases tried by jury and by appeal in all other cases; the form of proceeding thus depends solely on the single fact of whether there has been a trial by jury.
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Scope of Review On a writ of error, the reviewing court is confined to the bill of exceptions or questions of law otherwise presented by the record; on an appeal, review is confined to the statement of facts and rulings certified by the court below, and the facts set forth in that statement are conclusive on the appellate court, which may not consider the testimony in any case.
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction over Territorial Courts The Act of April 7, 1874, governing the mode of review of territorial court judgments applies to all territorial courts, not only to those Territories in which the distinction between suits at law and suits in equity had actually been abolished.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This 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.

The 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 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.”

*236 This 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.

We 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. -

Motion granted.