Winn's Heirs v. Jackson, 25 U.S. 135 (1827)

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court

Winn's Heirs v. Jackson, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 135 135 (1827)

Winn's Heirs v. Jackson

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 135

ERROR TO THE COURT OF

APPEALS OF KENTUCKY

Syllabus

The judgment of the highest court of law of a state deciding in favor of the validity of a statute of a state, drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, is not a final judgment within the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch, 20, if the suit has been remanded to the inferior state court where it originated for further proceedings not inconsistent with he judgment of the highest court.


Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

Winn's Heirs v. Jackson, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 135 135 (1827) Winn's Heirs v. Jackson

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 135

ERROR TO THE COURT OF

APPEALS OF KENTUCKY

Syllabus

The judgment of the highest court of law of a state deciding in favor of the validity of a statute of a state, drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, is not a final judgment within the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch, 20, if the suit has been remanded to the inferior state court where it originated for further proceedings not inconsistent with he judgment of the highest court.

This was an ejectment originally brought in the Harrison Circuit Court of the State of Kentucky by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error, and judgment being rendered for the plaintiffs, the cause was carried by writ of error to the Court of Appeals, being the highest court of law and equity of that state. The judgment was reversed in the Court of Appeals, and the cause remanded to the Harrison Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Appeals. Whereupon the plaintiffs sued out their writ of error under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. and brought the cause before this Court as being a suit where was drawn in question the validity of a statute of the State of Kentucky on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the decision being in favor of its validity.

Mr. Wickliffe moved to quash the writ of error upon the ground that although the decision of the Court of Appeals was in favor of the validity of the statute which had been drawn in question as being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, the judgment of that court was not "a final judgment" within the true meaning of the 25th section

Page 25 U. S. 136

of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, the case having been remanded to the Circuit Court of Harrison for further proceedings.

Motion allowed.