LOUIS CURTIS, BENJAMIN CURTIS, JOHN L. HUBBARD, JAMES D. B. CURTIS, AND HENRY A. BOORAINE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
MADAME THERESE PETITPAIN, WIFE OF VICTOR FESTE, AND MANDERVILLE MARIGNY, LATE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Victor Feste and attempted to execute on his property, but Madame Feste claimed a superior legal right to the proceeds as his wife based on her separate property decree and dowry rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of proper jurisdiction, holding that the agreed statement of facts did not constitute a proper record for Supreme Court review under the Court's rules, and that the judgment below was not subject to reexamination by the Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice C AMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.
The record certified in this cause consists of “ an agreed statement of facts,” which the parties' submitted to -the court on the rules taken by the plaintiffs against the defendants, and the judgment rendered thereon, anda judgment rendered on amotion for a new trial, being the proceedings after the submission of the case.
‘The case stated is, that the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Victor Feste in the .circuit court of the-United States. That an execution issued thereon, and a seizure was made of immovable as well as movable property; which was sold, and the proceeds held by the marshal.
While these proceedings were pending, Madame Feste recovered, in one of the state courts, a decree against her husband, Victor Feste, for the separation of property and the amount of dowry brought in marriagé; and thereupon served a notice upon the marshal, claiming to have satisfaction of her legal mortgage, in preference to the execution creditor, from the moneys in his hands, and obtained a rule from the court requiring him to answer her claim, The plaintiffs, upon their part, (as the case states,) also obtained a rule, to enforce the payment of the money to them on their execution. To settle these conflicting claims was the object of the agreed case thus submitted to the court.
Two questions arise in limine, either of which is, in our opinion, decisive of this cause: 1st. That this is not such a transcript as will satisfy the 11th and 31st rules Of this court, under the decision of Keene v. Whittaker, 13 Pet. 459; and, 2d, that this is not such a judgment as this court can reexamine, according to the principle of Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530. And we agree with the defendants upon both thése questions.
The cause is dismissed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gumbel v. Pitkin & others, 113 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1885)
-
Redfield v. Parks, 130 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1889)…and the 31st rule was like the present Rule 8, subdivision 3. In view of those rules, and because the record did not contain any of the proceedings in the court below, this court dismissed the case. The same, thing was done in Curtis v. Petitpain, 18 How. 109, where the certified record consisted of an agreed statement of facts and a judgment. While the court has undoubtedly the power to dismiss the case as for want of prosecution by the plaintiff in error, because of his failure to see that a proper re…
Authorities Cited
- Dulles v. Jones, 9 How. 530 (U.S. 1850)
- Keene v. Warren Whittaker and others, 13 Pet. 459 (U.S. 1839)