Skip to content


Hampton Vs. Rouse - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number80 U.S. 187
AppellantHampton
RespondentRouse
Excerpt:
.....for which the writ will be dismissed, a matter often held. it appeared from the record that wade hampton, wade hampton, jr., and j. m. howell were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly. the judgment was against the defendant in the singular, but, as the verdict was joint, this court considered it obvious that this was a mere clerical error, and that the judgment, doubtless, followed the verdict. page 80 u. s. 188 wade hampton alone prosecuted the writ of error, and there appeared to have been no summons and severance or other equivalent proceeding. [ footnote 1 ] the chief justice: it has often been held that in a writ of error to a.....
Judgment:
Hampton v. Rouse - 80 U.S. 187 (1871)
U.S. Supreme Court Hampton v. Rouse, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 187 187 (1871)

Hampton v. Rouse

80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 187

MOTION TO DISMISS WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Syllabus

In a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join. The omission of one or more is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed, a matter often held.

It appeared from the record that Wade Hampton, Wade Hampton, Jr., and J. M. Howell were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly. The judgment was against the defendant in the singular, but, as the verdict was joint, this Court considered it obvious that this was a mere clerical error, and that the judgment, doubtless, followed the verdict.

Page 80 U. S. 188

Wade Hampton alone prosecuted the writ of error, and there appeared to have been no summons and severance or other equivalent proceeding. [ Footnote 1 ]

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join, and that the omission of one or more without such proceeding is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed. [ Footnote 2 ] The motion in the present case must therefore be

Granted.

[ Footnote 1 ]

See Masterson v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416.

[ Footnote 2 ]

Williams v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheat. 414; Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Pet. 399; The Protector, 11 Wall. 82.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //