MALLERS v. COMMERCIAL LOAN & TRUST CO, 216 U.S. 613 (1910)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 216 U.S. 613
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/216/613/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/216/613/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
MALLERS v. COMMERCIAL LOAN & TRUST CO, 216 U.S. 613 (1910)
216 U.S. 613
JOHN B. MALLERS, Plff. in Err.,
v.
COMMERCIAL LOAN & TRUST COMPANY.
No. 726.
Submitted February 28, 1910.
Decided March 14, 1910.
Mr. Charles B. Stafford for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Horace G. Stone for defendant in error.
Per Curiam:
The Commercial Loan & Trust Company, a banking corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, in 1895 brought suit against John B. Mallers upon a promissory note, and jugment was entered therein by the appellate
court for the first district in favor of the bank, against Mallers, which judgment was affirmed by the supreme court.
On the case being remanded to the appellate court, an execution was issued by the clerk to enforce the collection of the judgment, which Mallers moved to quash, and from the judgment of that court denying that motion a writ of error was prosecuted to the supreme court, which affirmed the judgment of the appellate court.
The case was then brought here on writ of error, which must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U.S. 275, 50 L. ed. 1026, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617; Burt v. Smith, 203 U.S. 129, 51 L. ed. 121, 27 Sup Ct. Rep. 37; Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U.S. 86, 53 L. ed. 709, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 483.
No Federal question was raised in the state courts, and the attempt to raise a Federal question in the assignment of errors in this court not only came too late, but was palpably not maintainable. Chapin v. Fye, 179 U.S. 127, 45 L. ed. 119, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 71.
Writ of error dismissed.