Hodges v. Vaughan

Supreme Court

Hodges v. Vaughan

86 U.S. 12, 22 L. Ed. 46, 19 Wall. 12, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1417

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 22, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 86 U.S. 12 (Hodges v. Vaughan) 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

Hodges v. Vaughan, 86 U.S. 12, 22 L. Ed. 46, 19 Wall. 12, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1417 (1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD

delivered the opinion of the court.

A motion for certiorari is founded upon a suggestion of diminution, and is designed to bring up some part of the record loft back and not included in the transcript. When first presented, and without explanation, the court was inclined to grant the motion, but upon further consideration, we are all of the opinion that it must be denied, as the writ of certiorari is not a proper remedy for the alleged defect. Nothing is omitted from the transcript which is a part of the record in the court below. On the contrary, the only complaint is that the clerk has not appended to the transcript his certificate that it contains the full record. Such a defect, in a case of contumacy, might be remedied by a mandamus, but no application of that sort is made nor is it suggested that there are any grounds for such an application. Under the circumstances the motion for certiorari is denied, and leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript to enable him to apply to the clerk of Ihe court below to append thereto the necessary certificate.

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

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD

delivered the opinion of the court.

A motion for certiorari is founded upon a suggestion of diminution, and is designed to bring up some part of the record loft back and not included in the transcript. When first presented, and without explanation, the court was inclined to grant the motion, but upon further consideration, we are all of the opinion that it must be denied, as the writ of certiorari is not a proper remedy for the alleged defect. Nothing is omitted from the transcript which is a part of the record in the court below. On the contrary, the only complaint is that the clerk has not appended to the transcript his certificate that it contains the full record. Such a defect, in a case of contumacy, might be remedied by a mandamus, but no application of that sort is made nor is it suggested that there are any grounds for such an application. Under the circumstances the motion for certiorari is denied, and leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to withdraw the transcript to enable him to apply to the clerk of Ihe court below to append thereto the necessary certificate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 U.S. 12, 22 L. Ed. 46, 19 Wall. 12, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-vaughan-scotus-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack