Devereaux v. Marr, 25 U.S. 212 (1827)
U.S. Supreme Court
Devereaux v. Marr, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 212 212 (1827)
Devereaux v. Marr
25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 212
ON DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WEST TENNESSEE
Syllabus
This Court cannot take jurisdiction of a question on which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court are opposed where the division of opinions arises upon some proceeding subsequent to the decision of the cause in that court.
In this case the judges of the Circuit Court of West Tennessee, after a judgment had been rendered in that court,
divided in opinion upon the question as to the amount of the security bond to be given by the party applying for a writ of error, whether the amount of the bond ought to be sufficient to cover the whole debt, or only for the costs and increased damages on the party failing to prosecute his writ of error with effect. Whereupon the division of opinions was certified to this Court under the 6th section of the Judiciary Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 291.
U.S. Supreme Court
Devereaux v. Marr, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 212 212 (1827)
Devereaux v. Marr
25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 212
ON DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WEST TENNESSEE
Syllabus
This Court cannot take jurisdiction of a question on which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court are opposed where the division of opinions arises upon some proceeding subsequent to the decision of the cause in that court.
In this case the judges of the Circuit Court of West Tennessee, after a judgment had been rendered in that court,
divided in opinion upon the question as to the amount of the security bond to be given by the party applying for a writ of error, whether the amount of the bond ought to be sufficient to cover the whole debt, or only for the costs and increased damages on the party failing to prosecute his writ of error with effect. Whereupon the division of opinions was certified to this Court under the 6th section of the Judiciary Act of 29 April, 1802, ch. 291.
This Court was of opinion that it had no jurisdiction of the question on which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed, the division of opinions having arisen after the decision of the cause in that court.
Certificate accordingly.
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.
