TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tracy v. Holcombe

Alfred Tracy, Surviving Partner of Edward Tracy, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Holcombe

Tracy v. Holcombe, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 426 (1861)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 14, 1861
Judges
Taney
Citations
65 U.S. 42616 L. Ed. 74224 How. 4261860 U.S. LEXIS 423
Headnotes
Where the judgment of the court below reverses the decision of the inferior court and awards a new trial, it is riot a final judgment from which a writ of error will lie to this court.
Summary
This case was brought up by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. - The record showed that a suit was brought by Tracy as surviving partner against Holcombe, and on. the 30th of December, 1857, the judgment of the court was entered that he should recover $2,340.71, with costs. . On the .13th of July, 1859, the Supreme Court.ordered that ‘ “the judgment'of the court below be, in all things, reversed, and a new trial granted.” On the 8th of Octobér, 1859, a writ of error was issued pursuant to section'third of the act of Congress entitled, “ An act for the admission of Minnesota into the Union;” passed May, 11, 1858, and section eighteen of the act of Congress entitled, “ An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for. the year ending 30th June, 1859,” passed June 12, 1858.

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

Opinion — Taney

*427 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case has been brought here by a writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. But upon looking into the transcript, it appears that the judgment which it is proposed to revise is a judgment reversing the decision of the court below, and awarding a new trial. There is, therefore, no final judgment in the case, and the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.

How later courts describe this case

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

1901: 11903: 11905: 11914: 11921: 11948: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Morgan v. Thompson124 F. 203 (8th Cir. 1903)
  2. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk276 F. 113 (8th Cir. 1921)
  3. De Grazia v. Anderson58 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1948)
  4. Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield183 U.S. 130 (1901)
  5. United States v. Beatty232 U.S. 463 (1914)
  6. Clement v. Wilson135 F. 749 (2d Cir. 1905)

Most recent

  1. De Grazia v. Anderson58 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1948)
  2. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk276 F. 113 (8th Cir. 1921)
  3. United States v. Beatty232 U.S. 463 (1914)
  4. Clement v. Wilson135 F. 749 (2d Cir. 1905)
  5. Morgan v. Thompson124 F. 203 (8th Cir. 1903)
  6. Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield183 U.S. 130 (1901)

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