Bartemeyer v. Iowa

Supreme Court

Bartemeyer v. Iowa

81 U.S. 26, 20 L. Ed. 792, 14 Wall. 26, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 973

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 26, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 81 U.S. 26 (Bartemeyer v. Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 81 U.S. 26, 20 L. Ed. 792, 14 Wall. 26, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 973 (1872).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. Justice MILLER

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is submitted to us on printed argument. In this class of cases the court has been in the habit of examining the record to see if it has jurisdiction whether the question is raised by counsel or not; and the case before us we find ourselves compelled to dismiss, because there is no proper allowance of the writ of error.

Writs of error to the Circuit Court, under, the 22d section of the Judiciary Act, issue as a matter of course, and can be obtained from the clerk of the Circuit Court, and, when filed in his office by the party, are duly served. But writs of error to the State courts can only issue when one of the questions mentioned in the 25th section of that act was decided by the court to which the writ is directed, and in order that there may be some security that such a question was decided in the ease, the statute requires that the citation must be signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been the settled doctrine of this court that a writ of error to a State court must be allowed by one of the judges above mentioned, or it will he dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the case before us raises the ques[28]*28tion whether the writ has been allowed by a judge authorized to do so.

The Supreme Court of Iowa, which rendered the judgment complained of, is composed of a chief justice and three associate justices, and this writ is allowed by one of the associate justices.

We are of opinion that the act of Congress requires that, when there is a court so composed, the writ can only be allowed by the chief justice of that.court, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In case of a writ to a court composed of a single judge or chancellor, the writ may be allowed by that judge or chancellor, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The result of this construction of the statute is that the associate justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa who allowed the present writ had no authority to do so, and it is accordingly

Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice MILLER

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is submitted to us on printed argument. In this class of cases the court has been in the habit of examining the record to see if it has jurisdiction whether the question is raised by counsel or not; and the case before us we find ourselves compelled to dismiss, because there is no proper allowance of the writ of error.

Writs of error to the Circuit Court, under, the 22d section of the Judiciary Act, issue as a matter of course, and can be obtained from the clerk of the Circuit Court, and, when filed in his office by the party, are duly served. But writs of error to the State courts can only issue when one of the questions mentioned in the 25th section of that act was decided by the court to which the writ is directed, and in order that there may be some security that such a question was decided in the ease, the statute requires that the citation must be signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been the settled doctrine of this court that a writ of error to a State court must be allowed by one of the judges above mentioned, or it will he dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the case before us raises the ques[28]*28tion whether the writ has been allowed by a judge authorized to do so.

The Supreme Court of Iowa, which rendered the judgment complained of, is composed of a chief justice and three associate justices, and this writ is allowed by one of the associate justices.

We are of opinion that the act of Congress requires that, when there is a court so composed, the writ can only be allowed by the chief justice of that.court, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In case of a writ to a court composed of a single judge or chancellor, the writ may be allowed by that judge or chancellor, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The result of this construction of the statute is that the associate justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa who allowed the present writ had no authority to do so, and it is accordingly

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 U.S. 26, 20 L. Ed. 792, 14 Wall. 26, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartemeyer-v-iowa-scotus-1872.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack