The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-12-23

n error or supersedsds 10 the Judgment ot
the Circuit Court Of Rockingham county.
.Tb,s court, OF a former term, held az
gtauptop. Va, had refused such writ 10 inc
same ease, being OF opinion That The SAID
Judgment Ia plainly right BY ouch refusal
the said Judgment Of the Clrcuh Court OF
Rockingham had become irreversible. ana
placed beyond the control aud turisdiction
OF this court. Il was az one time penang
cause In this court. There Is no mode oy
which the decision Of an inferior court can
be reversed here except upon an appeal
allowed or writ Of error granted ana duly
perfected In conformity with the statutes
made and provided. II, therefore, the man.
date OF the Supreme Court OF the U3ited
States shall be entered on The records OF
this couri, 1t must be imperative ana
Of no effect unless this court shall now
grant writ OF error, or writ OF error
and supersedsds. to the said 1udg-
mept Of the Circuit Court OF Rockingham
county. That judgment was rendered on
the 18th Of April, 1871. The 18th section
Of chapter IFS OF the Code OF 1873 provides
that no process shall issue upon an appeal,
writ OF error. or Supersedeos TO or from
final judgment or decree. II, when the re-
cord Is delivered to TIE clerk ofthe appel
late court, there shall have elapsed Two
years since the date OF such final judgment,
decree, or order; but the appeal. writ OF
error, or superSededS, shall be dismissed
whenever IL appears that two years nave
ELAPSED since the said date before the re-
cord is delivered TO such clerk. SO that II
the Court should now grant the writ OF er-
ror and superSedeaS no process could issue
thereon; and II such process should issue,
the writ Of error or SuperSededs must mere
after be dismissed by the express mandate
OF the statute. II is further provided, eX-
cept in certain enumerated cases, that
writ OF error or SuperSededS shall not
take effect until bond Is gwen by the petit
toner IN O nenalty, and with certain condi-
lions prescribed; and il two years elapse
from the date OF such final judgment or de-
cree lefo~e such bond is given, the appeal,
writ Of error, or SuperSededS shall DC d's-
missed. (See sections 10 and II, chapter
IFS, Code OF 1879 In the present case The
record has not been delivered to the clerk
of this court, nor has any such bond been
given as is required OF the petitioner. nor,
indeed, can be. These considerations are
sufficient to show that no writ OF error or
superSededS can now be granted, or II
granted, it must be dismissed, unless this
court Is authorized to disregard the plain
letter OF the statute under which 1t exer-
cises its appellate jurisdiction. Ii may be
further added that when this court deems
the decision OF the Inferior court plainly
right, and rejects The Application for appeal
on that ground, no other appeal. writ OF
error, or SupPrSededS can afterwards be
granted BY this court in the said case. (See
section 10, chapter 17S, Code OF 1879
"For these reasons this Court, with the
highest respect and consideration for the
Supreme Court OF the United States, must
decline 10 take any further action with re-
speci to the mandate OF said court.
.sTbis entry is made on the record-book
Of this court in conformity with the request
and at the suggestion OF the counsel for the
petitioners.
"a copy-Teste,
"GEoRGE X. TAYLOR, &. c."
The petitioners accordingly pray that this
court will take such action Il may he pro-
per and needful in The premises TO give ef-
dcacy to its judgment.
We do not understand that the Court OF
Appeals intends by its refusal TO deny or
question The appellate power OF this tri-
buual in cases arising in the State court
where the validity OF statute OF or OF an
authority exercised under the State is drawn
in question on The ground OF its repug-
nancy to the Constitution and laws OF the
United States, and the decision is in favor
Df its validity. Its appellate jurisdiction
over the judgments OF the State courts in
such cases, and other cIses mentioned IN
The 25'b section OF the judiciary act OF
1880 roenac:ed in the Revised Stliutes),
passed beyond the region OF discussion in
Ibis court more than half Il century ago. As
early as 1916, 10 the celebrated case OF Martin
US. Hunters lessee. this court, in an opinion
II unanswersble reasoning from the general
language Of the Consti' ution, asserted its
appellate Jurisdiction over the State courts
In the cases mentioned in the act. Ii also
showed that tue jurisdiction had been su>-
tanned in great variety OF cases, and that
The doctrine had been acquiesced in by en-.
IighteDed State courts without judicial
doubt being breatbed until that case arose. |
No doctrine OF this court rests upon more |
solid foun dalions or is more fully valued |
aud cherished than that which sustains lis |
appellate power over State courts where the |
laws. and treaties OF the |
United States are drawn in question aud
their authority is denied or evaded, or
where any right is asserted under State
Law or authority in corfl ct with them. And
in no class Of cases could that jurisdiction
I've more properly Invoked than when, bv
enactments of a revolutionary organic III II
against he Government OF the United States,
the property or the rights OF citizens OF the
loval States are attempted to be destroyed
Or impaired because Of their loyalty to the
Union.
The main reason assigned by the Court
Of Appeals for declining 10 act upon our
mandate, as seen by it, opinion, is the lapse
Of over two years from the dlte OF the ren.
dItion Of the judgment OF tue Circuit Court
Of Rockingham county and The delivery OF
the record 10 that court. The judgment
was rendered on the 18Th OF April. 1871,
and the petition for the SuperSededS with
The record was not presented to the court
and delivered TO its clerk until the 18th Of
1874. The Court Of Appeals, 1t
Is true, in its opinion states that the record
has not been-delivered to lis clerk, but tins
Is evidently an inadvertence, as The TAN
script before us shows that sucn record was
filed with him on the day mentioned. The
Court ai>o a0ds, as further reasons for its
action, that bond with Il certain penalty
and prescribed conditions Was required 10
be given within like Derlod before super
sededS could take Effect, and that no such
bond was gwen In the case; and, also, that
when the Court OF Appeals deems deci-
sion OF the inferior court plainly right and
rejects an application for an appeal on that
ground, no other appeal or SuperSededS can
afterwards be granted.
These last two grounds do not impress us
as having force, for bond could not be re-
CURED until the writ Is allowed. And the
ground OF refusing The writ, that the deci-
son in the inferior court was plainly right.
being itself held To be unieuable there could