TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

May v. Keep

May and Daniels v. Keep

May v. Keep, 2 Pin. 301 (1849)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1849
Citations
2 Pin. 3011 Chand. 285
Headnotes
1. Certiorari — supreme court. — The supreme court has authority to grant a common law e&i'tiorari returnable before it, to the judgment of a justice of the peace, and will allow the writ where an execution has issued on the judgment returnable before the next term of the circuit court in that county, security being first filed with the clerk. 2. Same. — Upon application for such writ, cause must be shown why the application is made here, and not to the circuit court. (1 Chcmd. 285.)
Summary
THIS was a motion made before the supreme court at the Juue term, 1849, for the allowance of a common law certio-rari, to remove the proceedings and judgment of the justice before whom the same was tiled, to this court. This motion was founded upon a petition showing a judgment rendered against the applicants by the justice, and also the errors in the proceedings and judgment before Mm, and showing also an an excuse on the part of the defendants, for not having availed themselves of the benefit of an appeal from the judgment, to the circuit court. The petition prayed the allowance of the common law certiorari, by this court, because the circuit court within the jurisdiction of wMch the matter arose, would not be in session before the execution already issued on the judgment would be returnable. cited the following authorities : Sess. Laws of 1844, \ 4, p. 17 ; §§ 3 and 8 of art. 7, of the Const.; 5 Wend. 98; 7 id. 667, 508; 7 Cow. 587 ; 9 Wend. 433.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The court determined that it had the power to authorize the issuing of the writ; but in ordinary cases would not feel itself bound to allow it indiscriminately, where there was an opportamity of making application to a circuit court at a term of such a court, and in accordance with this view of the case ordered that the writ issue in case a bond should be executed and filed with the clerk by the parties making this motion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1865–1866: 11875–1876: 11877–1878: 11889–1890: 11901–1902: 11909–1910: 118652026peak 1865 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Pierce44 Wis. 411 (1878) · Dissent
  2. People ex rel. Kocourek v. City of Chicago & Schlesinger & Meyer193 Ill. 507 (1901)
  3. Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire37 Wis. 400 (1875)
  4. The Homesteaders v. McCombs, Ins. Com'r.1909 OK 202, 103 P. 691
  5. State ex rel. Dollard v. Board County Commissioners46 N.W. 1127 (S.D. 1890)
  6. Hurlbut v. Wilcox19 Wis. 419 (1865)

Most recent

  1. The Homesteaders v. McCombs, Ins. Com'r.1909 OK 202, 103 P. 691
  2. People ex rel. Kocourek v. City of Chicago & Schlesinger & Meyer193 Ill. 507 (1901)
  3. State ex rel. Dollard v. Board County Commissioners46 N.W. 1127 (S.D. 1890)
  4. In re Pierce44 Wis. 411 (1878) · Dissent
  5. Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire37 Wis. 400 (1875)
  6. Hurlbut v. Wilcox19 Wis. 419 (1865)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list