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.

Hampton Vs. Rouse

Hampton vs Rouse

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1871
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/82070

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
80 U.S. 187
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hampton

Respondent

Rouse

Excerpt

hampton v. rouse - 80 u.s. 187 (1871) u.s. supreme court hampton v. rouse, 80 u.s. 13 wall. 187 187 (1871) hampton v. rouse 80 u.s. (13 wall.) 187 motion to dismiss writ of error to the circuit court for the southern district of mississippi syllabus in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join. the omission of one or more is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed, a matter often held. it appeared from the record that wade hampton, wade hampton, jr., and j. m. howell were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly. the judgment was against the defendant in the singular, but, as the verdict was joint, this court considered it obvious that this was a mere clerical error, and that the judgment, doubtless, followed the verdict. page 80 u. s. 188 wade hampton alone prosecuted the writ of error, and there appeared to have been no summons and severance or other equivalent proceeding. [ footnote 1 ] the chief justice: it has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join, and that the omission of one or more without such proceeding is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed. [ footnote 2 ] the motion in the present case must therefore be granted. [ footnote 1 ] see masterson v. herndon, 10 wall. 416. [ footnote 2 ] williams v. bank of the united states, 11 wheat. 414; owings v. kincannon, 7 pet. 399; the protector, 11 wall. 82.

Full Judgment

Hampton v. Rouse - 80 U.S. 187 (1871)
U.S. Supreme Court Hampton v. Rouse, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 187 187 (1871)

Hampton v. Rouse

80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 187

MOTION TO DISMISS WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

SYLLABUS

In a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join. The omission of one or more is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed, a matter often held.

It appeared from the record that Wade Hampton, Wade Hampton, Jr., and J. M. Howell were defendants in the court below to an action of ejectment, and that the bill of exceptions, on which the writ of error was sued out, was tendered by them jointly. The judgment was against the defendant in the singular, but, as the verdict was joint, this Court considered it obvious that this was a mere clerical error, and that the judgment, doubtless, followed the verdict.

Page 80 U. S. 188

Wade Hampton alone prosecuted the writ of error, and there appeared to have been no summons and severance or other equivalent proceeding. [ Footnote 1 ]

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

It has often been held that in a writ of error to a joint judgment against several, all must join, and that the omission of one or more without such proceeding is an irregularity for which the writ will be dismissed. [ Footnote 2 ] The motion in the present case must therefore be

Granted.

[ Footnote 1 ]

See Masterson v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416.

[ Footnote 2 ]

Williams v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheat. 414; Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Pet. 399; The Protector, 11 Wall. 82.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial