From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Comstock v. Eagleton

U.S.
Jan 3, 1905
196 U.S. 99 (1905)

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 105.

Submitted December 15, 1904. Decided January 3, 1905.

Under § 9, act of May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, c. 182, final judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in actions at law can only be revised by this court as are judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States in similar actions — by writ of error and not by appeal.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. C.J. Wrightsman, Mr. E.L. Fulton, Mr. Andrew Wilson and Mr. Noel W. Barksdale for plaintiff in error.

There was no appearance or brief for defendant in error.


This was an action brought by Comstock against Eagleton in the District Court of Pawnee County, Oklahoma, to recover damages for false imprisonment in the sum of $5,317.50.

The petition was demurred to on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the demurrer was sustained, and the petition dismissed with costs. The case was then carried to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma on error, and the judgment affirmed. 11 Okla. 487.

From the judgment of affirmance this appeal was allowed and prosecuted to this court.

By section 9 of the "Act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Oklahoma," approved May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, c. 182, it was provided that "where the value of the property or the amount in controversy" exceeded five thousand dollars, "writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court shall be allowed and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States."

Final judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States in actions at law can only be revised on writs of error. Deland v. Platte County, 155 U.S. 221; Met. Railroad Company v. District of Columbia, 195 U.S. 322; Bevins v. Ramsey, 11 How. 185; Sarchet v. United States, 12 Pet. 143.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Comstock v. Eagleton

U.S.
Jan 3, 1905
196 U.S. 99 (1905)
Case details for

Comstock v. Eagleton

Case Details

Full title:COMSTOCK v . EAGLETON

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 3, 1905

Citations

196 U.S. 99 (1905)

Citing Cases

Quindlen v. Hirschi

That a judicial officer is not liable to civil action for judicial acts is universally well settled, and is…

Oklahoma City v. McMaster

Act of Congress, 1874, 18 Stat. 27, 28. The contention of defendant is not correct in this case. The manner…