About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Ex parte Russell U.S. 664 (1872)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0355 and id is 1 raw text is: Ex PARTE IRUSSELL. [Sup. Ct. Syllabus. 3d. That thenceforward the common law of all the States was restored to its original principles of liberty, justice, and right, in conformity with which some of the highest courts of the late Slave States, notably that of Louisiana, have de- cided, and all might, on the same principles, decide, slave contracts to be invalid, as inconsistent with their jurispru- dence, and this court has properly refused to interfere with those decisions. 4th. That the clause in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution which forbids compensation for slaves emanci- pated by the thirteenth, can be vindicated only on these principles. 5th. That clauses in State constitutions, acts of State legislatures, and decisions of State courts, warranted by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, cannot be held void as in violation of the original Constitution, which forbids the States to pass any law violating the obligation of contracts. Ex PARTE RUSSELL. 1. The words final disposition in the 2d section of the act of June 25th, 1868, allowing the Court of Claims at any time while any suit or claim is pending before or on appeal from the said court, or within two years next after the final disposition of any such suit or claim, on motion on behalf of the United States, to grant a new trial in any such suit or claim, mean the final determination of the suit on appeal (if an ap- peal is taken), or if none is taken, then its final determination in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims has accordingly power to grant a new trial, if the same be done within two years next after the final disposition, although the case may have been decided on appeal in this court, and its mandate have been issued. 2. When the Court of Claims on a motion for a new trial under the 2d sec- tion of the act of June 25tb, 1868, above referred to, has not reached the consideration of the motion on its merits, but has dismissed it under an assumption that they had no jurisdiction to grant it, mandamus directing the court to proceed with the motion is the proper remedy. Appeal is not a proper one. S. But if the Court of Claims have granted an appeal, mandamus will not lie to cause them simply to vacate the allowance of it.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most