TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Skillern's Executors v. May's Executors

Skillern’s Executors v. May’s Executors

Skillern's Executors v. May's Executors, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 267 (1810)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 18, 1810
Citations
10 U.S. 2673 L. Ed. 2206 Cranch 2671810 U.S. LEXIS 340
Cited by 77 3 descriptions by later courtsOriginal from court
Headnotes
It is too late to question the jurisdiction of the circuit court after the cause has been sent back by mandate.
Summary
•THIS was a case certified from the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, the judges of that court being divided in opinion. ° The former decree of the court below had been reversed in this court, and the cause M remanded for further proceedings to be had therein, in order that an equal and just partition of the 2.,500 'acres of land, mentioned in the assignment of the 6th of March,-1785, be made between the legal representatives of the said George Skillern and the said John May.5’’ (Vide ante, vol. 4. p. 141.) The cause being before the court below upon the mandate, the question occurred which is stated in the following certificate, viz. v In this case a final descree had been pronounced, and by writ of error removed to the supreme court, who reversed the decree, and after the cause was sent back to this court it was discovered to be a cause not within-the-jurisdiction of the court ; but a question arose whether it efin now be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, after the supreme cqurt had acted thereon. The opinion of the. judges of this court being opposed on this question, it is ordered “ that the same be adjourned to the supreme court for their decision,” See.

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

Opinion

This court, after consideration, directed the following opinion to be certified to the court below, viz.

*268 “ ^ aPPearS that the merits of this canse had been finally decided in this court, and that its mandate required only the execution of its decree, it is the opinion of this court that the circuit court is bound to carry that decree into execution, although the. jurisdiction of that court be not alleged i'n the pleadings.”

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 77 cases

View all citing references →
1821–1822: 11827–1828: 11829–1830: 11837–1838: 11843–1844: 11847–1848: 11849–1850: 21851–1852: 21857–1858: 11859–1860: 11865–1866: 11871–1872: 21873–1874: 11875–1876: 21877–1878: 21879–1880: 11881–1882: 41887–1888: 21889–1890: 11891–1892: 11893–1894: 71895–1896: 31897–1898: 31899–1900: 21901–1902: 21903–1904: 11905–1906: 11907–1908: 11909–1910: 21911–1912: 11913–1914: 11915–1916: 21917–1918: 11919–1920: 11925–1926: 21929–1930: 11933–1934: 11935–1936: 11937–1938: 11939–1940: 11945–1946: 11947–1948: 11965–1966: 11967–1968: 11975–1976: 11983–1984: 11989–1990: 11997–1998: 12007–2008: 22015–2016: 12023–2024: 218212026peak 1893 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Loeser v. Savings Deposit Bank & Trust Co.163 F. 212 (6th Cir. 1908)
  2. Pioneer Import Corporation v. the Lafcomo159 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1947)
  3. Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Farr383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967)
  4. McNutt ex rel. Leggett, Smith, & Lawrence v. Bland43 U.S. (2 How.) 9 (1844)
  5. Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson146 P. 203 (Ariz. 1914)
  6. State v. Morton153 P.3d 532 (Kan. 2007)

Most recent

  1. Terry Hall v. Bpm Lumber, LLCNo. 2023-SC-0332 (Ky. Dec. 19, 2024)
  2. Lamb v. Smith and Wamsley PLLCNo. 4:24-cv-00024 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2024)
  3. National Inspection & Repair, Inc. v. FarahNo. 102281 (Kan. Ct. App. July 1, 2016)
  4. Terminix International Co. v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. Partnership280 F. App'x 829 (11th Cir. 2008)
  5. State v. Morton153 P.3d 532 (Kan. 2007)
  6. State v. Collier952 P.2d 1326 (Kan. 1998)

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