State v. Demarest

Supreme Court

State v. Demarest

110 U.S. 400, 4 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. Ed. 191, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1708

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 4, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 U.S. 400 (State v. Demarest) 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

State v. Demarest, 110 U.S. 400, 4 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. Ed. 191, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1708 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered tbe opinion of the court.

This is a motion by Cornebus N. Durie, tbe successor in office of Demarest, tbe defendant in error, to docket and dismiss a case. From the motion papers it appears that Demarest, as collector of tbe township, recovered a judgment against the State, Ruckman prosecutor, in tbe Court of Errors and Appeals *401 of-Ñew Jersey, on the 11th of July, 1806, and that Ruckman sued out a writ of error from this court, gave bond and had citation signed, but never docketed the case here. Ruckman died on the 5th of November, 1882, and Demurest in the summer of 1883.

Upon these facts it is clear that the writ of error had become inoperative for want of prosecution long before it abated, by the death of the parties. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505, and cases there cited. The exact date when the writ was sued out is not stated, but if it had been delayed until five years after the judgment, there was no time within ten years before the death of Ruckman that he would have been allowed to docket the case in this court, since that could only be done during the term to which the writ was returnable. It seems to us proper, therefore, to declare the suit abated by the death of the parties, and leave the representatives of those in interest to proceed accordingly. An order to that'effect hay be entered.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered tbe opinion of the court.

This is a motion by Cornebus N. Durie, tbe successor in office of Demarest, tbe defendant in error, to docket and dismiss a case. From the motion papers it appears that Demarest, as collector of tbe township, recovered a judgment against the State, Ruckman prosecutor, in tbe Court of Errors and Appeals *401 of-Ñew Jersey, on the 11th of July, 1806, and that Ruckman sued out a writ of error from this court, gave bond and had citation signed, but never docketed the case here. Ruckman died on the 5th of November, 1882, and Demurest in the summer of 1883.

Upon these facts it is clear that the writ of error had become inoperative for want of prosecution long before it abated, by the death of the parties. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505, and cases there cited. The exact date when the writ was sued out is not stated, but if it had been delayed until five years after the judgment, there was no time within ten years before the death of Ruckman that he would have been allowed to docket the case in this court, since that could only be done during the term to which the writ was returnable. It seems to us proper, therefore, to declare the suit abated by the death of the parties, and leave the representatives of those in interest to proceed accordingly. An order to that'effect hay be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 U.S. 400, 4 S. Ct. 25, 28 L. Ed. 191, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-demarest-scotus-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack