Randall v. Board of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cty.

261 U.S. 252, 43 S. Ct. 252, 67 L. Ed. 637, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2548
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 19, 1923
Docket274
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 261 U.S. 252 (Randall v. Board of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cty.) 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
Randall v. Board of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cty., 261 U.S. 252, 43 S. Ct. 252, 67 L. Ed. 637, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2548 (1923).

Opinion

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Justice Sutherland.

■ This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Indiana, when, clearly, it should have been to the State Appellate Court.

The action was brought in the Superior Court for Tippecanoe County. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. An appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court < but that court, of its own motion, entered an order trans-' ferring the cause to the Appellate Court, for want of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court thereupon took the case, received the briefs of counsel, heard oral arguments .and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. A petition for rehearing was submitted and denied. Plaintiffs in errop then applied to the Supreme Court for an order to vacate its former order of transfer, or, in the alternative, for a writ of error coram nobis, which the Supreme Court denied.

It therefore appears that the Supreme Court refused to take the cáse on appeal' for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment of the highest-court of the State in which a deci *253 sion in the suit could be had, Judicial Code, § 237, is that of the Appellate Court to which the writ should have been directed.

The writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed on the authority of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hughes, 203 U. S. 505; Lane v. Wallace, 131 U. S. Appendix CCXIX; Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 269; Second National Bank v. First National Bank, 242 U. S. 600; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530.

Dismissed.

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

Related

Sims v. Town of New Chicago
842 N.E.2d 830 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2006)
Lien v. H.E.R.C. Products, Inc.
8 F. Supp. 2d 531 (E.D. Virginia, 1998)
Minor v. City of Keokuk, Iowa
92 F. Supp. 833 (S.D. Iowa, 1950)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission
91 F. Supp. 980 (M.D. Alabama, 1950)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. v. Williamson
36 F. Supp. 607 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1941)
Hilliker v. Grand Lodge, K. P.
112 F.2d 382 (Sixth Circuit, 1940)
Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Seignious
30 F. Supp. 549 (E.D. South Carolina, 1939)
Southern Fruit Co. v. Porter
21 F. Supp. 1011 (W.D. South Carolina, 1937)
Nord v. Griffin
86 F.2d 481 (Seventh Circuit, 1936)
Nutt v. Ellerbe
56 F.2d 1058 (E.D. South Carolina, 1932)
Station WBT, Inc. v. Poulnot
46 F.2d 671 (E.D. South Carolina, 1931)
Aetna Life Insurance v. Dunken
266 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 U.S. 252, 43 S. Ct. 252, 67 L. Ed. 637, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-board-of-commrs-of-tippecanoe-cty-scotus-1923.