Amis Vs. Pearle

Amis vs Pearle

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1841

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/79746

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/79746
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1841
Case Number: 40 U.S. 211
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

Amis

Respondent

Pearle

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes - an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed - then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

.....the judge of the court, is produced by the defendant in error and is now before us. under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the substance of the rule is complied with. the certificate of the clerk is but prima facie evidence of the issuing and allowance of the writ of error, whereas the production of the writ of error, with the citation, is the highest evidence of the fact that the writ of error has been duly sued out and allowed. under these circumstances, the court is of opinion that the motion ought to be granted. in point of fact, this same question came before this court in the case of ward v. commonwealth bank of kentucky, at january page 40 u. s. 212 term 1838, under circumstances less cogent, and the same decision was then made. in that case, certified copies of the writ and citation, were filed, and not the originals, and the court ordered the case to be docketed and dismissed. motion granted.

Full Judgment

Amis v. Pearle - 40 U.S. 211 (1841)
U.S. Supreme Court Amis v. Pearle, 40 U.S. 15 Pet. 211 211 (1841)

Amis v. Pearle

40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 211

MOTION TO DISMISS

MOTION on behalf of the defendant in error to docket and dismiss the suit under the forty-third rule of the court.

STORY, JUSTICE, delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, a motion has been made on behalf of the defendant in error, to docket and dismiss this suit under the 43d rule of the Court. That rule allows the suit to be docketed and dismissed upon the production of a certificate from the clerk of the court below certifying that the writ of error had been duly sued out and allowed. In the present case, no such certificate is produced. But the original writ of error (signed by the clerk of the court below) and also a citation signed by the judge of the court, is produced by the defendant in error and is now before us. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the substance of the rule is complied with. The certificate of the clerk is but prima facie evidence of the issuing and allowance of the writ of error, whereas the production of the writ of error, with the citation, is the highest evidence of the fact that the writ of error has been duly sued out and allowed. Under these circumstances, the Court is of opinion that the motion ought to be granted. In point of fact, this same question came before this Court in the case of Ward v. Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky, at January

Page 40 U. S. 212

term 1838, under circumstances less cogent, and the same decision was then made. In that case, certified copies of the writ and citation, were filed, and not the originals, and the Court ordered the case to be docketed and dismissed.

Motion granted.