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.
GODBE v. TOOTLE, 1870 — 154 U.S. 576 · caselaw · US
General
GODBE v. TOOTLE
154 U.S. 57619 L. Ed. 831·Supreme Court of the United States·1870
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
GODBE v. TOOTLE.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH.
No. 258.
Argued April 22, 1870.
Decided April 30, 1870.
This court will not review a judgment in favor of a firm, if the writ of error does not name the persons who compose it.
The case is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Chase]
Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion of the- court.
This is a motion to dismiss the writ of error by which the cause is brought here from the Supreme Court of the Territory.
Mr. A. G. Thurman, Mr. B. N. Baskin, Mr. T. W. Bartley, and Mr. F. P. Stanton for the motion.
. Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. John Titus opposing.
The writ of error describes the judgment as rendered in favor of Tootle, Leach & Co., without naming the persons who composed the firm. But it has been often held that such a writ is irregular and that this court will not undertake to review' a judgment thus described. The cases are cited in Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355, and need not be more particularly referred to.
The motion to dismiss the writ must be allowed.