TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Kirk

Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Kirk

Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kirk, 111 U.S. 486 (1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 21, 1884
Judges
Waite
Citations
111 U.S. 4864 S. Ct. 50028 L. Ed. 4811884 U.S. LEXIS 1806
Syllabus
Amendment — Error—Practice. Under authority conferred upon the court by § 1005 Rey. Stat., a writ of error bearing a wrong teste, signatures of justice and of clerk, and seai of court, may be amended as to teste and signature of justice by order of court, and as to seal and signature of clerk by directing them to be affixed.
Summary
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. Motion to. dismiss, with which was united motion to affirm.

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 defendant in error movgs to dismiss this casé for want of.a sufficient writ of error, and with this motion is united one *487 to affirm under sec. 5 of Rule 6. The plaintiff in error moves for leave to amend the writ.

In our opinion the motion to amend should be granted. The writ is in every respect in accordance with the form transmitted by the clerk of this court to the clerks of the Circuit Courts, under the authority of the act of May 8th, 1792,- c. 36, sec. 9, now sec.' 1004 of the Revised Statutes, except that it is made returnable on a wrong day, bears the teste of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, and • is signed by the chief justice'and the clerk, and sealed with the seal of that court. It commands the Justices of the Supreme Court of Texas, in the name of. the President of'the United States', to transmit to this court for review their record and proceedings in a certain suit, which is properly described, and the return has been made and the cause duly docketed here. In Bmdurcmt v. Watson, 103 Ü. S. 278, relied on in support .of the motion to dismiss, the writ did not purport to be issued in the name of the President, or under the authority of the United States: It was in reality nothing more than an order of the Supreme Court of Louisiana-to its clerk to transmit the record and proceedings of that court. in a certain cause to this court for review.

By sec. 1005 of the Revised Statutes, we are authorized to allow an amendment of a writ of error, when there has been a mistake in the teste, ór a seal is wanting, or the writ is made returnable on a wrong day, “and in all other particulars of form.” This writ is signed by the clerk of the' Supreme Court of Texas; and in McDonough v. Millamdon, 3 How. 693, 707 , the question whether that was not sufficient was left open. But however that may be, we think all the defects which are complained of are such as come within the remedial provisions of the statute, and the amendments asked for may be made, save only that the seal and the signature of the clerk of this court, instead of the Circuit Court of the "Western District of Texas, may be affixed to the writ. If the amendments, are made on or before Monday next, the motion to dismiss will be denied, otherwise' it will be granted.

"The case upon the merits is not of a character to be disposed of on a motion to affirm.

That motion is overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1894: 21895: 11898: 11906: 11911: 11926: 118942026peak 1894 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Long v. Farmers' State Bank147 F. 360 (8th Cir. 1906)
  2. Miller v. Texas153 U.S. 535 (1894)
  3. Bryan v. Ker222 U.S. 107 (1911)
  4. Walton v. Marietta Chair Co.157 U.S. 342 (1895)
  5. Mutual Life Insurance v. Hartley109 So. 421 (Fla. 1926)
  6. Burnham v. North Chicago St. Ry. Co.87 F. 168 (7th Cir. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Mutual Life Insurance v. Hartley109 So. 421 (Fla. 1926)
  2. Bryan v. Ker222 U.S. 107 (1911)
  3. Long v. Farmers' State Bank147 F. 360 (8th Cir. 1906)
  4. Burnham v. North Chicago St. Ry. Co.87 F. 168 (7th Cir. 1898)
  5. Walton v. Marietta Chair Co.157 U.S. 342 (1895)
  6. Miller v. Texas153 U.S. 535 (1894)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
McDonogh v. Millaudon, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 693 (1845) 9

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