Gen., for the motion. On the contrary, it was held in Sheppard v. Wilson, 5 How.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. The record exhibits nothing of what took place in the court of original jurisdiction, and begins with the assignment of errors in the Court of Criminal Appeals. The law of contracts will govern the interpretation of the decree based on a property settlement agreement. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. MILLER v. STATE OF TEXAS. *843 Steven G. Condos, Dallas, for petitioner. 274; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. The parties entered into this agreement in March, 1983, but the judgment was not signed by the court until November, 1983.
Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. Argued March 30, 1939. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment for petitioner, Douglas Miller.
", In this case, the writ runs in the name of the President of the United States to the judges of the court of criminal appeals, is tested in the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, signed by the clerk of the court of criminal appeals, and allowed by its presiding judge. There is evidence to support this finding since Douglas testified that there was no new agreement. 693, 707: 'If errors had been assigned by the plaintiff here, and joined by the defendant, no motion to dismiss for such a cause could be heard.' In this assignment no claim was made of any ruling of the court below adverse to any constitutional right claimed by the defendant, nor does any such appear in the opinion of the court, which deals only with certain alleged errors relating to the impanelling of the jury, the denial of a continuance, the admission of certain testimony, and certain exceptions taken to the charge of the court. Without, however, expressing a decided opinion upon the invalidity of the writ as it now stands, we think there is no federal question properly presented by the record in this case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground. Since this is a judgment based on an agreement between the parties, Douglas, in seeking to enforce this provision of the decree, is seeking to enforce the contract in the decree. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. See also Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, 698. 35, and Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. So in Texas Pacific Railway v. Southern Pacific Co., 137 U. S. 48, it was held directly that a privilege or immunity under the Constitution of the United States cannot be set up here under Rev.Stat.
14 S.Ct.
Defendant brought error. Without, however, expressing a decided opinion upon the invalidity of the writ as it now stands, we think there is no federal question properly presented by the record in this case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground. 693, 707: 'If errors had been assigned by the plaintiff here, and joined by the defendant, no motion to dismiss for such a cause could be heard.' Mr. Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States. Ct. 317), and such error would be amendable under section 1005, which provides that the supreme court may allow an amendment of a writ of error in all particulars of form (Railway Co. v. Kirk, 111 U. S. 486, 4 Sup. Miller was 14 years old at the time.
105).
See also Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 137 U. S. 698. And by ยง 1003, "writs of error from the Supreme Court to a state court in cases authorized by law shall be issued in the same manner, and under the same regulations, and shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States.". This was an indictment against Franklin P. Miller in a court of the state of Texas for murder, on which he was convicted. The award to Douglas, however, was a specific $12,500. Com., 7 Wall. There was no other question under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries The trial court clearly had jurisdiction to consider Deborah's defense of the deed and a new agreement in determining whether to, or how to, enforce the divorce decree. Defendant brought error. 38 L.Ed. case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground. In this case the writ runs in the name of the president of the United States to the judges of the court of criminal appeals, is tested in the name of the chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, signed by the clerk of the court of criminal appeals, and allowed by its presiding judge. 210, that the act of 1838, providing that writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the Supreme Court of a Territory, should be allowed in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, gave to the clerk of the territorial court the power to issue the writ of error, and to a judge of that court the power to sign the citation, and approve the bond. 321; The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall.
Miller v. Texas by Henry Billings Brown Syllabus. But the court express no opinion as to whether the error was, in itself, cause for dismissal. 321; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law, nor did the law of the State, to which reference was made, abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as such privileges and immunities are defined in the Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 'It had not,' said the court, 'a single requisite of a writ of this court.' So in Texas & P. Ry. May 14, 1894. Thus, there is an implied finding by the trial court that there was no valid new agreement. Allen v. Allen, 717 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.1986). Douglas was to receive $12,500 from the proceeds of the sale. SMITH, Respondent. of Supreme Court of Texas opinions. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. The parties may have entered into a new agreement after the parties agreed to the $12,500 award in March, but this new agreement and the deed of the property to Deborah were prior to the date the divorce decree was signed on November 29, 1983. . . As was said in Ex parte Ralston, it has doubtless 'been the prevailing custom from the beginning for the clerk of this court or of the circuit court for the proper district to issue the writ, and for such writ to be lodged with the clerk of the state court,' but it has never been held that the signature of the clerk of the state court was fatal to the writ. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).