Walden v. Craig

22 U.S. 576, 6 L. Ed. 164, 9 Wheat. 576, 1824 U.S. LEXIS 397
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 18, 1824
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 22 U.S. 576 (Walden v. Craig) 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
Walden v. Craig, 22 U.S. 576, 6 L. Ed. 164, 9 Wheat. 576, 1824 U.S. LEXIS 397 (1824).

Opinion

22 U.S. 576 (1824)
9 Wheat. 576

WALDEN ex dem. DENN
v.
CRAIG.

Supreme Court of United States.

February 6, 1824.
February 21, 1824.

*577 This cause was argued by Mr. Taylor,[a] for the plaintiff, no counsel appearing for the defendant.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

Upon this case two questions arise:

1. Ought the Circuit Court to have granted leave to the plaintiff to extend the term laid in his declaration?

2. Does a writ of error lie to the refusal to grant this amendment?

It has been truly said in argument, by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the power of amendment is extended at least as far in the 32d *578 section of the judiciary act, as in any of the British statutes; and that there is no species of action to which the discretion of the Court in this respect ought to be more liberally applied than to the action of ejectment. The proceedings are all fictitious, fabricated for the mere purposes of justice, and there is every reason for allowing amendments in matters of mere form. There is peculiar reason in this case, where the cause has been protracted, and the plaintiff kept out of possession beyond the term laid in the declaration, by the excessive delays practiced by the opposite party. The cases cited by the plaintiff's counsel in argument are, we think, full authority for the amendment which was asked in the Circuit Court, and we think the motion ought to have prevailed. But the course of this Court has not been in favour of the idea that a writ of error will lie to the opinion of a Circuit Court, granting or refusing a motion like this. No judgment in the cause is brought up by the writ, but merely a decision on a collateral motion, which may be renewed. For this reason, the writ of error must be dismissed.

NOTES

[a] He cited Cro. Jac. 440. 1 Salk. 47. 2 Str. 807. 2 Burr, 1159. 4 Burr, 2447. Str. 1272. Cowp. 841. 7 Cranch, 569. 1 Cranch, 110. 4 Cranch, 237. 4 Cranch, 324. 5 Cranch, 11. 5 Cranch, 15. 6 Cranch, 206. 7 Cranch, 569.

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

Related

Bair v. State
551 S.E.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Smith v. State
439 S.E.2d 483 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
Hope v. State
570 A.2d 1185 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1990)
Dollar v. State
1984 OK CR 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1984)
United States v. Alphonse Lewis, Jr.
651 F.2d 1163 (Sixth Circuit, 1981)
Bennett v. Shumate
1978 OK CR 113 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1978)
State v. Di Giosia
70 A.2d 756 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1950)
Lupfer v. Carlton
64 F.2d 272 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
Hartley v. Lapidus & Holub Co.
216 F. 92 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Liebing v. Matthews
216 F. 1 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Whitworth v. United States
114 F. 302 (Eighth Circuit, 1902)
Cross v. Phillips
14 App. D.C. 228 (D.C. Circuit, 1899)
Morris v. Wheat
11 App. D.C. 201 (D.C. Circuit, 1897)
Stevens's Administrator v. Nichols
157 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Burke v. Dulaney
153 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Chapman v. Barney
129 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court, 1889)
Welch v. County Court of Wetzel County
1 S.E. 337 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1886)
Phillips v. Negley
13 D.C. 236 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1883)
The Elmira
16 F. 133 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 U.S. 576, 6 L. Ed. 164, 9 Wheat. 576, 1824 U.S. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walden-v-craig-scotus-1824.