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

Murdock v. City of Memphis U.S. 590 (1875)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0461 and id is 1 raw text is: MURDOCK V. CITY OF MEMPHIS. [Sup. Ct. Syllabus. actions on all written contracts, sealed or unsealed, began to run against the coupons in suit from their respective ma- turities; and accordingly AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. CLIFFORD, J.: I dissent from the opinion of the court, upon the ground that the case is governed by our prior decisions. MURDOCK V. CITY OF MEMPHIS. 1. The second section of the act of Feb. 5th, 1867 (14 Stat. at Large, 385), to amend the Judiciary Act of 1789, operates as a repeal of the twenty-fifth section of that act; and, the act of 1867, as it is now found in the Revised Statutes of the United State3, 709, is the sole law governing the removal of causes from State courts to this court for review, and has been since its enactment in 1867. 2. Congress did not intend, by omitting in this statute the restrictive clause at the close of the twenty-fifth section of the act of 1789 (limiting the Supreme Court to the consideration of Federal questions in cases so re- moved) to enact affirmatively that the court should consider all other questions involved in the case that might be necessary to a final judg- ment or decree. 3. Nor does the language of the statute, that the judgment may be re- examined and reversed or affirmed on a writ of error . . . in the same manner and under the same regulatians, and the writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been ren- dered or passed in a court of the United States, require the examina- tion of any other than questions of Federal law. 4. The phrase above quoted has reference to the manner of issuing the writ, its return with the record of the case, its effect in removing the case to this court, and the general rules of practice which govern the progress of such cases to final judgment, and is not intended to prescribe the considerations which should govern this court in forming that judgment. 5. But the language of the statute in making the jurisdiction of this court dependent on the decision of certain questions by the State court against the right set up under Federal law or authority, conveys the strongest implication that these questions alone are to be considered Vhen the case is brought here for revision. 6. This view is confirmed by the course of decisions in this court for eighty years, by the policy of Congress, as shown in numerous statutes, con- ferring the jurisdiction of this class of cases in courts of original juris- diction, viz , the District and Circuit Courts, whether originally or by removal from State courts, when it intends the whole case to be tried, and by the manifest purpose which caused the passage of the law.

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