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

Charlotte A. Parish, Appellant, v. Harvey W. Ellis and Wife, Appellees U.S. 451 (1842)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0325 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM, 1842. CHARLOTTE A. PAHisE, APPELLANT, V. HARVEY W. ELLIS AND WIFE,APPELLEES. The acts of Congress, relating to judicial proceedings in the territory of Florida, give the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, in cases of equity, of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and prize or no prize; but cases at law are to be brought up by writ of error, as provided for by the judiciary act of 1789. It has always been held that a case at law, cannot, under the act of 1803 be brought to the Supreme Court by. appeal. In many of the states and territories, the ancient common law remedy for the purpose- of obtaining an allotment qf dower, as well as the remedies for other legal rig'hte, have been changed for others more convenient and suitable to our situation and habits; yet they are regerded as cases at law, although they are not carried on according to the forms of the common law. Cited, Parsons v. Bedford and others, 3 Peters, 447. ON appeal from the Court of Appeals,'in Florida. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court. The only question in the case on which the Court gave an opi- nion, was upon the right of the appellant to bring the case to this Court by appeal, instead of by writ of error. Mr. Gilpin, for the appellees, contended, that an appeal does not lie in this Court; this case could be brought here only by *rit of error. It is not a case either of .eqtity, admiralty, or prize or no prize. From 1789 to 1803,.all cases were brought here by writ of error. Act of 24th September, '1789, sec. 22; 1 Story's Laws, 60. In 1803, appeals were allowed; but they were ex- pressly confined to cases of equity, admiralty, and prize or no prize. Act of 3d March, 1803, see. 2; 2 Story's Laws, 905. The Courts have always' strictly maintained this distinction be- tween the two modes of proceeding. United States v. Hansoffy 1 Gallison, 21; The San Pedro, 2 Wheat. 141. In the case .of Ward v. Gregory, 7 Peters, 633, this Court dismissed an appeal from a judgment rendered in the proceedings upon a mandamus, which were not proceedings in a case of equify; admiralty, or prize or no prize. The proceedings for the assignment of dower certainly fall as little within either of these classes of cases as

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