TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hurst v. Hollingsworth

Hurst v. Hollingsworth, 94 U.S. 111 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 20, 1876
Judges
Waite
Citations
94 U.S. 11124 L. Ed. 314 Otto 1111876 U.S. LEXIS 1840
Headnotes
Where a party sued out a writ of error, and obtained the allowance of an appeal, and duly filed a transcript of the record here, the court will not, on motion, dismiss the cause, but, when it comes oh to be heard, will determine whether it is properly here by appeal or by writ of error, and proceed accordingly.
Summary
Oír motion.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

Hurst, the plaintiff below, being in doubt whether his case was one to be brought here by appeal or by writ of error, took the precaution of suing out a writ of error, and also of obtaining the allowance of an appeal. At the proper time he filed a transcript of the record, and the cause was docketed by the clerk as upon a writ of error; thereupon the defendant moved to docket and dismiss the appeal. Hurst now appears and asks leave to docket his appeal. The defendant does not object to this, but, treating it as an election for Hurst to proceed here upon the appeal, moves to dismiss the writ of error.

These motions are all denied. There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record. When the transcript of that record was brought here by Hurst, his cause was docketed. It is not necessary to enter it twice, because, out of abundant caution and to guard against a possible chance of dismissal, he has brought it here in two ways. He has but one cause; and, when we come to examine it, we will determine whether .it is properly here by appeal or by writ of error, and will proceed accordingly.

Motions denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1886–1887: 11898–1899: 11904–1905: 11908–1909: 11910–1911: 118862026peak 1886 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Hung Chang134 F. 19 (6th Cir. 1904)
  2. Courtney v. Pradt160 F. 561 (6th Cir. 1908)
  3. State v. Illinois Central Railroad246 Ill. 188 (1910)
  4. Plymouth Gold Mining Co. v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Co.118 U.S. 264 (1886)
  5. McFadden v. Mountain View Min. & Mill. Co.97 F. 670 (9th Cir. 1899)

Most recent

  1. State v. Illinois Central Railroad246 Ill. 188 (1910)
  2. Courtney v. Pradt160 F. 561 (6th Cir. 1908)
  3. United States v. Hung Chang134 F. 19 (6th Cir. 1904)
  4. McFadden v. Mountain View Min. & Mill. Co.97 F. 670 (9th Cir. 1899)
  5. Plymouth Gold Mining Co. v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Co.118 U.S. 264 (1886)

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