Hurst v. Hollingsworth

Supreme Court

Hurst v. Hollingsworth

94 U.S. 111, 24 L. Ed. 31, 4 Otto 111, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1840

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 20, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 94 U.S. 111 (Hurst v. Hollingsworth) 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

Hurst v. Hollingsworth, 94 U.S. 111, 24 L. Ed. 31, 4 Otto 111, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1840 (1876).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 U.S. 111, 24 L. Ed. 31, 4 Otto 111, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-v-hollingsworth-scotus-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack