Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Matthews Vs. Zane

Matthews vs Zane

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1808
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78433

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
8 U.S. 382
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Matthews

Respondent

Zane

Excerpt

matthews v. zane - 8 u.s. 382 (1808) u.s. supreme court matthews v. zane, 8 u.s. 4 cranch 382 382 (1808) matthews v. zane 8 u.s. (4 cranch) 382 error to the state court of the state of ohio syllabus if two citizens of the same state, in a suit in a court of their state, claim title under the same act of congress, this court has an appellate jurisdiction to revise and correct the judgment of that court in such case. error to the state court of the state of ohio under the 25th section of the judiciary act, vol. 1, p. 63. the plaintiff in error claimed title to land in the state of ohio under the act of congress, passed in 1800, and the decision of the state court was against him. the defendant in error also claimed title to the same land, under the same act of congress. the question was whether in such a case this court had an appellate jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a state court. page 8 u. s. 383 the court at first hesitated as to the jurisdiction, but upon consultation together and deliberation, mr. chief justice marshall declared it to be the opinion of a majority of the judges that this court has jurisdiction. that the third article of the court of the united states when considered in connection with the statute, will not give it a more extensive construction than it might otherwise receive. it is supposed that the act intends to give this court the power of rendering uniform the construction of the laws of the united states and the decisions upon rights or titles claimed under those laws.

Full Judgment

Matthews v. Zane - 8 U.S. 382 (1808)
U.S. Supreme Court Matthews v. Zane, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 382 382 (1808)

Matthews v. Zane

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 382

ERROR TO THE STATE COURT

OF THE STATE OF OHIO

SYLLABUS

If two citizens of the same state, in a suit in a court of their state, claim title under the same act of Congress, this Court has an appellate jurisdiction to revise and correct the judgment of that court in such case.

Error to the state court of the State of Ohio under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, vol. 1, p. 63.

The plaintiff in error claimed title to land in the State of Ohio under the act of Congress, passed in 1800, and the decision of the state court was against him.

The defendant in error also claimed title to the same land, under the same act of Congress.

The question was whether in such a case this Court had an appellate jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a state court.

Page 8 U. S. 383

The Court at first hesitated as to the jurisdiction, but upon consultation together and deliberation,

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL declared it to be the opinion of a majority of the judges that this Court has jurisdiction.

That the third article of the court of the United States when considered in connection with the statute, will not give it a more extensive construction than it might otherwise receive.

It is supposed that the act intends to give this Court the power of rendering uniform the construction of the laws of the United States and the decisions upon rights or titles claimed under those laws.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial