Adams County MsArchives Court.....Buckholt's Adm'r, Blanchard's Adm'r Vs. 1818
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines December 7, 2005, 9:45 am

Source: Reports Of Cases Adjudged In The Supreme Court Of Mississippi, June Term, 1818, By R. J. Walker, Reporter Of The State.
Written: 1818

BLANCHARD'S ADM'R. vs. BUCKHOLT'S ADM'R.

The constitution of this state, does not define the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court, but leaves that to the legislature. 

The statute, authorizing an inferior court, when it doubts as to the law, to 
transfer the case, before final judgment, to the Supreme Court, is 
constitutional.

When an inferior court makes a general order, transferring a case for its 
decision before final judgment, to the Supreme Court, such transfer is valid, 
though the reasons for the transfer are not contained in the order of the 
court below.

This suit is brought here from the Superior Court of the county of Adams, upon 
an order of that court, directing that it be transferred to the Supreme Court. 
It is now moved to remand it, inasmuch as it has come into this court in such 
a manner that the court cannot take cognizance of it.

How far courts of appeals can take original jurisdiction of causes, has been 
much litigated in the courts of the United States, and of the several States; 
but no case similar to the present, has, so far as I have observed, been 
presented for 

adjudication. The Constitution of the United States confines the original 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to particular enumerated cases, and in all 
other cases, it has appellate jurisdiction only. In the case of Marbury vs. 
Madison, that court decided, that they could not take original cognizance of 
cases, not particularly enumerated in the Constitution, 

notwithstanding Congress may have given them the power. The Constitution of 
Kentucky contains a similar provision to that in the Constitution of the 
United States, respecting their Court of Appeals, and in the case of Morgan 
against Rogers, reported in Hardin, a like decision took place.

In Virginia, in the case of M’Call vs. Peachy, reported in 1st Call, it has 
been decided, that an appeal will not lie from the high court of chancery, to 
the high court of appeals, until after a final decree, though the parties 
consent thereto. 

Some doubts may exist, as to the soundness of this last decision. The 
reasoning of Washington, is more satisfactory to the mind, than that on which 
the judgment was founded. He contended, that where the court has not original 
jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause, there, consent cannot give 
it, but where the court has eventual jurisdiction of the subject, then consent 
may submit the cause to their jurisdiction.

However, all those cases are materially different from the present. That in 
the Supreme Court of the United States, and that in the state of Kentucky, 
were cases in which it was attempted to give original jurisidiction, to courts 
of appellate jurisdiction only, without the consent of parties, or the cause 
having originated in an inferior court. In the case in Virginia, the superior 
court, from which the cause was brought, had no power in any case whatever, or 
under any circumstances, to transfer a suit to the court of appeals, until 
after final judgment below. The constitution of this state, does not define 
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but leaves that to the legislature. The 
statute organizing the Supreme Court, declares, that no cause ahall be removed 
therein, until after final judgment in the court below, with this exception, 
that where the judge or judges in the court below, shall doubt as to the law 
or rule of decision, in that case, he or they may respite the final judgments, 
and refer the question to the Supreme Court for their determination. Here then 
is one case, in which a cause can be transferred into this court, before a 
final judgment in the court below, with or without the consent of parties. But 
in the present case it is contended, that the cause is improperly in this 
court, in as much as the order transferring it is a general one, from which it 
does not appear, that the judge below doubted as to the law or rule of 
decision, or for what cause it was sent up. I think it is enough, that the 
court below has the power of transferring cases before final judgment, for any 
cause, to authorize them to make a general order for that purpose, nor do I 
consider the court below bound to state the reasons which induced them to make 
the transfer, nor is it the province of this court to enquire whether doubts 
did exist in the mind of the court below, or whether those doubts were well 
founded, or even a suggestion to the contrary. It is sufficient that the court 
below is authorized to make an order, sending a case up to this court before 
final judgment, and it is not to be supposed, that the court below would make 
the transfer, upon reasons unauthorized by law.

As there is no consent appearing in this case, it would be unnecessary to 
consider, how far that would alter the case: I would however observe, that, 
though consent cannot in some cases give jurisdiction, yet the want of consent 
cannot take away jurisdiction, wben it is in conformity with the law. I am 
therefore of opinion that the cause is properly here.

Source: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, June 
Term, 1818, By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the 
Courier and Journal Office, 1834; pages 64-66.




File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/adams/court/buckholt13gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 5.9 Kb