Miller v. McKenzie, 77 U.S. 582 (1870)

U.S. Supreme Court

Miller v. McKenzie, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 582 582 (1870)

Miller v. McKenzie

77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 582

Syllabus

A writ of error dismissed as defective in respect to parties where the suit was against four persons by name, and the writ recited that it was against two which it named, "and others."

Pitzer Miller brought suit in the court just named against Larkin McKenzie, James Hamer, Joseph Hamer, and Ezekiel Wall, to recover the value of several bales of cotton.

Page 77 U. S. 583

Such proceedings were had that a judgment was rendered for the defendants, whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error, the writ reciting that the proceedings were between "Peter Miller, Larkin McKenzie, and others."

U.S. Supreme Court

Miller v. McKenzie, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 582 582 (1870)

Miller v. McKenzie

77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 582

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Syllabus

A writ of error dismissed as defective in respect to parties where the suit was against four persons by name, and the writ recited that it was against two which it named, "and others."

Pitzer Miller brought suit in the court just named against Larkin McKenzie, James Hamer, Joseph Hamer, and Ezekiel Wall, to recover the value of several bales of cotton.

Page 77 U. S. 583

Such proceedings were had that a judgment was rendered for the defendants, whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error, the writ reciting that the proceedings were between "Peter Miller, Larkin McKenzie, and others."

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

It appears, from an inspection of the record that the writ of error is defective in respect to the parties. It is therein recited that the proceedings are between Pitzer Miller and Larkin McKenzie and others. This defect has been held so many times in this Court as fatal to its jurisdiction that it need be but mentioned to require a dismissal of the case.

Motion granted.

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.