MALLERS v. COMMERCIAL LOAN & TRUST CO, 216 U.S. 613 (1910)

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

Page 216 U.S. 613, 614

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.


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

Page 216 U.S. 613, 614

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.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.