Upon the admission of Florida as a state, the records of the
former territorial court of appeals were directed by a law of the
state to be deposited for safekeeping with the clerk of the supreme
court of the state.
No writ of error can be issued to bring up a record thus
situated, the territorial court being defunct, and the supreme
court of the state not holding the records as part of its own
records, nor exercising judicial power over them.
Nor could a law of the state have declared the records of a
court of the United States to be a part of the records of its own
state court, nor have authorized any proceedings upon them.
If the record were to be brought up under the fourteenth section
of the act of 1789, it would be of no avail, because there is no
court to which the mandate of this Court could be transmitted.
This was a motion made to bring up the record in the above case,
which had been decided by the territorial court of appeals of
Florida previously to the admission of Florida as a state.
The motion was as follows:
"Mr. Westcott, in behalf of John Hunt, submitted to the court a
certified copy of the record of the opinion of said court of
appeals, and of said judgment in said case, and suggested to the
court that said court of appeals was defunct by the admission of
the Territory of Florida as a state, on 4 March last, and that all
the records and papers of said court of appeals, and the record
aforesaid in said case, had been placed, by the act of the general
assembly of the said state, in the custody and keeping of the clerk
of the supreme court of said state, and also that said case was a
case of federal jurisdiction, and he moved this Court to allow a
writ of error to remove said record and judgment into this Court,
with directions to the clerk of this Court to direct the same to
the judges of said supreme court of said state, and to the clerk
aforesaid having the custody of said record as aforesaid, in order
that said record and judgment may be certified to this Court, and a
return to said writ of error made by said clerk of said supreme
court of said state."
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
A motion has been made for process from this Court to bring here
for revision the record and proceedings of the late territorial
court of appeals of Florida, in the case of
Hunt v. Lessee of
M. & S. Palao, in which judgment was rendered in favor of
the latter, at February term, 1844.
Since Florida ceased to be a territory and became a state, a law
has been passed by the state, directing the records and papers of
the above-mentioned territorial court to be placed in the custody
of the clerk of the supreme court of the state, and under this law,
the record in the case in question is now in his possession for
safekeeping.
Page 45 U. S. 590
As Congress has made no special provision for a case of this
kind, the appellate power of this Court, if exercised at all, must
be exercised in the manner prescribed by the general laws of
Congress upon that subject. Under the act of 1832, writs of error
to the territorial court of appeals were to be prosecuted according
to the provisions and regulations of the twenty-fifth section of
the Judiciary Act of 1789. And assuming the case in question to be
one subject to revision in this Court, according to these acts of
Congress, yet the appellate power must be exercised in the manner
prescribed by these laws; and under the act of 1789, the writ of
error must be directed to the court which holds the proceedings as
a part of its own records, and exercises judicial power over them.
But the court which rendered the judgment in the case before us is
no longer in existence; the proceedings are not in the possession
of any court authorized to exercise judicial power over them, but
are in the possession of an officer of another court, merely for
the purpose of safekeeping. For the law of Florida does not place
these records in the custody of the state court, but in that of the
clerk; nor does it subject him to the control of the court in any
manner in regard to them. And indeed if it had placed them in the
custody of the court, it would not have removed the difficulty, for
the law of the state could not have made them records of that
court, nor authorized any proceedings upon them. The territorial
court of appeals was a court of the United States, and the control
over its records, therefore, belongs to the general government, and
not to the state authorities, and it rests with Congress to declare
to what tribunal these records and proceedings shall be
transferred, and how these judgments shall be carried into
execution, or reviewed upon appeal or writ of error.
It has been suggested that a writ of error may issue, under the
fourteenth section of the act of 1789, to the person having the
actual custody of the record, upon the ground that such a writ is
necessary to the exercise of the appellate powers of this Court.
But if the language of that section would justify such a
construction, and the record and proceedings were brought here by a
writ of error, either to the supreme court of the state or to the
clerk, and the judgment of the territorial court found to be
erroneous and reversed, still there is no tribunal to which we are
authorized to send a mandate to proceed further in the case, or to
carry into execution the judgment which this Court may pronounce.
Certainly we could not send it to the supreme court of the state,
for it is not their judgment or record, nor have they any power to
execute the judgment given by the territorial court. Neither, for
the same reasons, could we send such a mandate to the district
court of the United States, unless authorized to do so by a law of
Congress. And it would be useless and vain for this Court to issue
a writ of error, and bring up the record, and proceed to
judgment
Page 45 U. S. 591
upon it, when, as the law now stands, no means or process is
authorized by which our judgment could be executed. We think,
therefore, that no judgment or decree rendered by the late
territorial court can be reviewed here by writ of error or appeal,
unless some further provision on that subject shall be made by
Congress. Consequently the motion in this case must be
Refused.
