Difference between revisions of "Clarke v. Conn"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Clarke v. Conn''}} File:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|link=Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[M...")
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Clarke v. Conn''}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Clarke v. Conn''}}
[[File:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|link=Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|''Clarke v. Conn'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by William Munford. New York: I. Riley, 1812.]]
+
[[File:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.jpg|link=Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|''Clarke v. Conn'']], in [http://wm-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/01COWM_WM:EVERYTHING:01COWM_WM_ALMA21560678820003196 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by William Munford. New York: I. Riley, 1812.]]
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
[[Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|''Clarke v. Conn'']], Munford Vol. I 160 (1810),<ref>William Munford, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' (New York: I. Riley, 1812), 160.</ref> was a case where the Court of Appeals had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
+
[[Media:MunfordsReports1812V1ClarkevConn.pdf|''Clarke v. Conn'']], Munford Vol. I 160 (1810),<ref>William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1812), 1:160.</ref> was a case where the Court of Appeals had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the original case with court costs. However, the plaintiff sought an appeal which required a security be paid to the court clerk. The plaintiff failed to make that deadline but a motion was granted by the court to allow the plaintiff to submit his bond and security at a later date. After the appeal was docketed for almost 5 years, the defendant submitted a motion dismissing the case for being improvidently (mistakenly, misleadingly) granted.  
+
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the original case with court costs. However, the plaintiff sought an appeal which required a security be paid to the court clerk. The plaintiff failed to make that deadline but a motion was granted by the court to allow the plaintiff to submit his bond and security at a later date. After the appeal was docketed for almost 5 years, the defendant submitted a motion dismissing the case for being improvidently (mistakenly, misleadingly) granted.
 +
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
After a hard deliberation, the Court of Appeals also dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
 
After a hard deliberation, the Court of Appeals also dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
 +
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]
 
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]
Line 13: Line 15:
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
 
  
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 
[[Category: Cases]]

Revision as of 14:24, 4 March 2018

Clarke v. Conn, Munford Vol. I 160 (1810),[1] was a case where the Court of Appeals had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Background

Chancellor Wythe dismissed the original case with court costs. However, the plaintiff sought an appeal which required a security be paid to the court clerk. The plaintiff failed to make that deadline but a motion was granted by the court to allow the plaintiff to submit his bond and security at a later date. After the appeal was docketed for almost 5 years, the defendant submitted a motion dismissing the case for being improvidently (mistakenly, misleadingly) granted.

The Court's Decision

After a hard deliberation, the Court of Appeals also dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

See also

References

  1. William Munford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, (New York: I. Riley, 1812), 1:160.