TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Hancock

Clark v. Hancock, 94 U.S. 493 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 19, 1877
Judges
Waite
Citations
94 U.S. 49324 L. Ed. 1461876 U.S. LEXIS 1894
Headnotes
This court, where it manifestly has no jurisdiction over the matter in controversy, will entertain a motion to dismiss the writ of error before the return-day thereof.
Summary
Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the áupreme Court of the State of California.

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.

The final judgment in this case was rendered Oct. 3, 1876, and the writ of error issued Nov. 16, returnable to the October ^erm, 1877. The defendants in error, having filed a copy of the record and docketed the cause, now move to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction.

It is not claimed by the plaintiff in error that there is any Federal question disclosed by the record, but it is' insisted that a motion to dismiss cannot be entertained until the return-day of the writ. Such was the old practice; but in Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 671 , and Thomas v. Wooldridge, 23 id. 288, the rule was changed. It seemed to us then that such a change would “ be likely to prevent great delays and expense, and further the ends of justice.” Subsequent experience confirms, that opinion. In the present crowded state of our docket it becomes us to be especially careful that our jurisdiction is not .invoked for delay merely; and, when the record is presented in such a form that we can, without too great inconvenience, inform our-selves of the questions to be decided, we shall be inclined to receive applications of this kind. In the present case, we have a printed record, and it is evident we have no jurisdiction.

Motion granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1880–1881: 11896–1897: 118802026peak 1880 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hamill v. Bank of Clear Creek County7 Colo. App. 472 (1896)
  2. Whalen v. Sheridan10 F. 661 (1880)

Most recent

  1. Hamill v. Bank of Clear Creek County7 Colo. App. 472 (1896)
  2. Whalen v. Sheridan10 F. 661 (1880)

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