Strader v. Baldwin
Jacob Strader, Robert Buchanan, John McCormick, John R. Coram, Joseph Smith, James Johnson, and George C. Miller, Trustees of the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, v. Henry Baldwin
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is brought here by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
As the power of this court to review the decisions of State tribunals is limited to certain specified cases and conditions, the *262 first inquiry which necessarily presents itself 'is* whether we have -jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs in error instituted this suit in the Superior Court of Cincinnati. The declaration has the common counts in assumpsit. The defendant appeared and pleaded his discharge under the act of Congress of the 19th of August, 1841, to “ establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, &c.” The plaintiffs denied the validity of this discharge, on the ground that the debt was incurred by defendant while acting as clerk or book-keeper in the Commercial Bank, and thérefore “ acting in a fiduciary capacity.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs prosecuted their writ of error to this court.
The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, which is the only source of our authority in cases like the present, gives this court jurisdiction to “ reexamine'” the judgment of a State court only where the decision “ is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption specially set up or claimed” under an act of Congress.
The plaintiffs in this case have set up no act of Congress in their pleadings, under which they support their claim or title to recover. It is the defendant who has pleaded a privilege or exemption under a statute of the United Stat>-3, and relies upon it as his only defence. If the decision of - the State court had been against him, his right to have his case reexamined by this court could not be doubted. But the decision has been in favor of the right set up under the statute, the validity of which was denied by the plaintiffs. We have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio at their suggestion.
This case must, therefore, be dismissed, for want of jurisdiction.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, within and for the County of Hamilton, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is .now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that this cause be, and the same, is hereby, dismissed, for the want of jurisdiction.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.