Case Name: William Long, plaintiff in error, vs. Gabriel Long, for the use of Jesse D. Walling, defendant in error
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1844-01
Citations: 1 Morris 381
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Long, plaintiff in error, vs. Gabriel Long, for the use of Jesse D. Walling, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Iowa
Volume: 1
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
William Long, plaintiff in error, vs. Gabriel Long, for the use of Jesse D. Walling, defendant in error.
Error to Muscatine.
Where a cause is still pending in the court below, the Supreme Court will not entertain a question brought up by consent of parties.
It ¡3 not the province of the Supreme Court to give advice to the District Courts.
Gabriel Long for the use of Jesse D. Walling had sued William Long in an action of debt, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff at the Juno term, 1839, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court and reversed at the July term, 1840, and a new trial ordered.— The opinion of the court and writ of procedendo were filed in the clerks office September 13, 1841. At May term 1843, the defendant moved the court to .strike lite cause from the docket, for reason that the same had in effect been discontinued. And at October term, 1843, the motion to strike the cause from the docket was overruled, to which the defendant excepied. And by the parties it was agreed that the cause should go to the Supreme Court for decision at the January term, 1844.
Whicher, for plaintiff in error.
Hastings, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Mason, Chief Justice.
A motion in this case for a discontinuance was overruled by the District Court. Without proceeding farther in that court the parties consent to bring the question relative to the discontinuance into this court. We shall decline acting in tho matter. It is not our province to give advice to the District Courts and our legitimate business furnishes us sufficient employment. The decision of the District Court now objected to, leaves this case still pending there. While it is so pending we will not entertain it here, even by consent of parties. The case will therefore be dismissed.