TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hampton v. Rouse

Hampton v. Rouse, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 187 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 18, 1872
Citations
80 U.S. 18720 L. Ed. 59313 Wall. 1871871 U.S. LEXIS 1328
Cited by 10
Syllabus
In a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join. The omission of one or more is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed; a matter often held.
Summary
■ This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. It appeared from the record that Wade Hampton, Wade Hampton, Jr., and J. M. Howell, were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly. The judgment was against the defendant in the singular, but, as the verdict was joint, this court considered it obvious that this was a mere clerical error, and that the judgment, doubtless, followed the verdict. Wade Hampton alono prosecuted the writ of error, and there appeared to have been no summons and severance or other equivalent proceeding.*

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

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join; and that the omission of one or more, without such proceeding, is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed.

† The motion in the present case must, therefore, be Granted.

† Williams v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheaton, 414 ; Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Peters, 399 ; The Protector, 11 Wallace, 82.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11895: 11896: 11900: 21901: 11908: 11916: 11920: 11933: 118882026peak 1900 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The Bylands231 F. 101 (5th Cir. 1916)
  2. Loveless v. Ransom107 F. 626 (7th Cir. 1901)
  3. Priest v. Seaman266 F. 844 (8th Cir. 1920)
  4. Elliot v. Lombard66 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1933)
  5. Ayres v. Polsdorfer105 F. 737 (6th Cir. 1900)
  6. Winters v. United States207 U.S. 564 (1908)

Most recent

  1. Elliot v. Lombard66 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1933)
  2. Priest v. Seaman266 F. 844 (8th Cir. 1920)
  3. The Bylands231 F. 101 (5th Cir. 1916)
  4. Winters v. United States207 U.S. 564 (1908)
  5. Loveless v. Ransom107 F. 626 (7th Cir. 1901)
  6. Ayres v. Polsdorfer105 F. 737 (6th Cir. 1900)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Owings v. Kincannon, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 399 (1833) 39
Williams v. Bank of United States, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 414 (1826) 27

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