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.

Jack Vs. Utah Territory

Jack vs Utah Territory

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-06-1890
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/86595

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
132 U.S. 643
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jack

Respondent

Utah Territory

Excerpt

jack v. utah territory - 132 u.s. 643 (1890) u.s. supreme court jack v. utah territory, 132 u.s. 643 (1890) jack v. utah territory no. 144. argued december 5, 1889 decided january 6, 1890 132 u.s. 643 appeal from the supreme court of the territory of utah syllabus clayton v. utah, ante, 132 u. s. 632 , affirmed and applied to this case. the case is stated in the opinion. mr. justice miller delivered the opinion of the court. this case, which is an appeal from the supreme court of the territory of utah, differs from the preceding case, of clayton against the same appellees in the fact that jack was charged with usurping and intruding into the office of territorial treasurer for the territory of utah, as clayton was alleged to be an intruder into the office of auditor of public accounts. these two offices were created by the same statute of the territory at the same time, and the mode of election prescribed by the statute was changed at the same time, by the same statute, to an election by the people, and jack claims to have been elected treasurer at the same general election in which clayton was elected auditor; that he received the commission of the governor of the territory, and that he has held the office ever since, by reason of the fact that no other election had been held, and no other person had been lawfully appointed to the office. the same principles govern this case as page 132 u. s. 644 govern the other. the judgment of the supreme court of the territory of utah was based upon the same grounds, and, for the reasons given by us in that case, we affirm the judgment in this. affirmed.

Full Judgment

Jack v. Utah Territory - 132 U.S. 643 (1890)
U.S. Supreme Court Jack v. Utah Territory, 132 U.S. 643 (1890)

Jack v. Utah Territory

No. 144.

Argued December 5, 1889

Decided January 6, 1890

132 U.S. 643

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH

SYLLABUS

Clayton v. Utah, ante, 132 U. S. 632 , affirmed and applied to this case.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, which is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah, differs from the preceding case, of Clayton against the same appellees in the fact that Jack was charged with usurping and intruding into the office of territorial treasurer for the Territory of Utah, as Clayton was alleged to be an intruder into the office of auditor of public accounts. These two offices were created by the same statute of the territory at the same time, and the mode of election prescribed by the statute was changed at the same time, by the same statute, to an election by the people, and Jack claims to have been elected treasurer at the same general election in which Clayton was elected auditor; that he received the commission of the governor of the territory, and that he has held the office ever since, by reason of the fact that no other election had been held, and no other person had been lawfully appointed to the office. The same principles govern this case as

Page 132 U. S. 644

govern the other. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah was based upon the same grounds, and, for the reasons given by us in that case, we affirm the judgment in this.

Affirmed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial