Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
COMSTOCK v. EAGLETON, 1905 — 196 U.S. 99 · caselaw · US
General
COMSTOCK v. EAGLETON
196 U.S. 9949 L. Ed. 402·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
COMSTOCK v. EAGLETON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA.
No. 105.
Submitted December 15, 1904.—
Decided January 3, 1905.
Under § 9, act of May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, c. 182, final judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in actions at law can only be revised by this court as are judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States in similar actions — by writ of error and not by appeal.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. J. Wrightsmcm, Mr. E. L. Fulton, Mr. Andrew Wilson and Mr. Noel W. Barksdale for plaintiff in error.
There was no appearance or brief for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice:]
The Chief Justice:
This was an action brought by Com-stock against Eagleton in the District Court of Pawnee County, Oklahoma, to recover damages .for false imprisonment in the sum of $5,317.50.
The petition was demurred to on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the demurrer was sustained, and the petition dismissed with costs. The case tvas then carried to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma on-error, and the judgment affirmed. 11 Oklahoma, 487.
From the judgment of affirmance this appeal was allowed and prosecuted to this court.
By section 9 of the "Act to provide a temporary government for the Territory of Oklahoma,” approved May 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 81, c. 182, it was provided that “where the value of the property or the amount in controversy” exceeded five thousand dollars, “writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court shall be allowed and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States.”
Final judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States in actions at law can only be revised on writs of error. Deland v. Platte County, 155 U. S. 221; Met. Railroad Company v. District of Columbia, 195 U. S. 322; Bevins v. Ramsey, 11 How. 185; Sarchet v. United States, 12 Pet. 143.
Appeal dismissed.