Peerce v. Carskadon
Citations
- 6 W. Va. 383
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. In a suit at law, in which an attachment had been sued out against the property of the defendants, and levied, and judgment had therein against the defendant on publication, the defendants .appeared in the court, in which the judgment was rendered, within live years from the rendition of the judgment, and offered to file their petition in the case,' ashing for a re-hearing of the same without accompanying the petition with the affidavit prescribed in such case by the Act of the Legislature passed on the 11th day of March 1865, which affidavit, so prescribed, is commonly known, and called “the suitors test oath.” The court below refused to receive the petition, on the ground that the same was not accompanied with said affidavit and the supreme court of appeals of this state affirmed the judgment of the court below in refusing to receive the petition. Held by the Supreme Court of the, United States, upon a writ of error, that so much of said act of the Legislature as prescribes and requires said affidavit, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore null and void; and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia in affirming- the judgment of the court below, was erroneous and must be reversed.</p> <p>2. The mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of this State for the cause aforesaid, being presented to the Supreme Court of Appeals of this State, and asked to be entered of record, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of this State asked to reverse its judgment in the case and to conform its judgment to the judgment of the Supremo Court of the United States. Held.</p> <p>That it is the duty of the Supreme Court of Appeals of this State to cause the mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States in said case, to be entered of record, and to reverse its judgment, and conform the same to the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Judges: Flaymond, Hoffman, Moore, Paull
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.