"Duely & Constantly Kept"
(Click Here to view entire document in PDF format) |
|
|
Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure [cont.]
Appellate Jurisdiction |
|
| The Supreme Court possessed appellate jurisdiction, which was divided into two general areas. The first, already discussed, was deciding issues of law arising during Supreme Court pleading and circuit court trials. The second area was reviewing cases from the lower civil and criminal courts. Judgments of lower courts of record were brought up to the Supreme Court for review by writ of error The court also decided cases transferred by writ of certiorari from lower courts of record prior to final judgment. Before about 1830, the Supreme Court reviewed justice court proceedings by writ of certiorari. In addition, the Supreme Court could employ special writs to review the acts and decisions of lower courts, quasi judicial bodies, and public officers.[1] | |
|
The Supreme Court had the common-law power to review by writ of error final
judgments and determinations of lower courts of record (those courts having a seal and a clerk). The return to the writ of error was the record of pleadings and proceedings in the lower court (i.e., the judgment roll) plus any additional information made part of the record by filing a bill of exceptions. In effect, the Supreme Court "tried the record" of the case being appealed.[2] Only the facts proved in court needed to be stated, not the evidence for those facts.
A civil judgment could be removed by writ of error directly to the Supreme Court from a county court of common pleas, from a mayor's or recorder's court, and (by statute) from the Superior Court of New York City, which after 1828 heard all appeals from the city court of common pleas (formerly mayor's court). A writ of error had to be allowed by a Supreme Court justice, clerk, or commissioner. The first ground for the writ was substantial error in law upon the face of the record (including erroneous judgment on demurrer). A second ground for a writ of error was error in law occurring in the trial of an issue of fact. The error was stated on the bill of exceptions, which was signed and seated by the presiding judge of the lower court and returned with the writ. Errors in law at the trial could be alleged if a judge acted improperly in admitting or rejecting testimony, ordering or refusing to order a non-suit, charging the jury, or ruling on a motion for a special verdict. A third ground for a writ of error was an error in fact upon the record (for instance, if the defendant were an infant appearing without a guardian, or a feme covert not appearing by her husband, or if the defendant were dead). Errors in fact upon the record of judgment in a lower court were correctable in the Supreme Court by writ of error. Errors of fact occurring in the Supreme Court itself (error coram nobis) were taken to the circuit court on writ of error. Errors in law in Supreme Court judgments could be taken to the Court of Errors by writ of error, if the writ were allowed by the chancellor, or by a Supreme Court justice, clerk, or commissioner.[3] | The Supreme Court had the common-law power to review by writ of error final judgments and determinations of lower courts of record. |
 |
Calendar of Enumerated Motions, January Term, 1816. Detail. See page 38 |
| The writ of error was also available in criminal cases. The writ of error in civil cases was a writ that the court (before 1815 the Court of Chancery, after 1815 the Supreme Court), was bound to issue once it was allowed by the appropriate officer.[4] The plaintiff in error was required to obtain sureties for the appeal. However, prior to 1830 a writ of error to review the judgment of a criminal court could not in practice be obtained without the permission of the attorney general. Moreover, errors in proceedings in a criminal trial could be reviewed on a bill of exceptions only with the consent of the prosecuting district attorney. These provisions discouraged criminal appeals. The Revised Statutes of 1829 provided that a writ of error in a criminal case could be issued without obtaining permission from the attorney general. However, a Supreme Court justice or circuit judge had to grant a stay of execution of sentence. The Revised Statutes also provided that a bill of exceptions could be taken in criminal as well as in civil cases and returned with the writ of error to the higher court. (In cases where capital punishment was mandated, a writ of error could be obtained only after being allowed by the chancellor or, after 1829, a Supreme Court justice, or a circuit judge, with notice to the attorney general or the prosecuting district attorney.)[5] | |
 |
Return to Writ of Error, 1812. Detail. See page 40 |
|
In civil cases a defendant in error had the right to demand an assignment of errors from the plaintiff in error. This document corresponded to a plaintiff's declaration in that it set forth the grounds for the case in erroL The assignment of errors could allege either common error, that the plaintiff's declaration did not sustain the action; or special error, that the judgment record lacked legally necessary information. The opposing party could then join in error, make a special plea, or demur. These steps resembled those of ordinary pleading. After joinder in error the attorney for the plaintiff in error prepared the error book, containing the writ, the judgment record returned with the writ, and the pleading in error. The attorney filed the error book with the Supreme Court clerk and sent a copy to the defendant in error. Argument of a case in error was an enumerated motion placed on the calendar of the general term of the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments by attorneys for both parties, the court either affirmed or reversed the lower court judgment. If the Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error, the court might order a new trial and issue a writ of venire facias de novo, ordering the sheriff to summon another jury. (This writ differed from an order for a new trial, mentioned above, in that it was given for error on the face of the record, not for irregularity in proceedings off the record.) If the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment, the defendant in error was entitled to the original judgment award plus additional court costs. Execution of an affirmed or reversed lower court judgment proceeded out of the Supreme Court, not out of the court where the case had originated. (However, in cases appealed from the Supreme Court to the Court of Errors, judgments affirmed or reversed were then remitted, or sent down, to the Supreme Court for filing and execution.)
[Chapter continued next page.] |
Execution of an affirmed or reversed lower court judgment proceeded out of the Supreme Court, not out of the court where the case had originated. |
|
Note 1: On the history of appellate procedure see Roscoe Pound, Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases (Boston: 1941), and Julius Goebel, History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Vol. 1, Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801 (New York: 1971), pp. 19-35. On pre-1847 appellate courts in New York see Graham, Organization and Jurisdiction of the Courts, pp. 232-40; and Jill P. Botler et al., "The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York: An Empirical Study of Its Powers and Functions as an Intermediate State Court," Fordham Law Review, 47(1979), 932-35. Note 2: The "record" of a final judgment on which a writ of error could be brought was defined in Clason vs. Shotwell, 12 Johns. 31 (1814). Note 3: Graham, Treatise on the Organization and Jurisdiction of the Courts of Law and Equity, pp. 232-89. On writs of error in the nature of coram nobis, brought for errors in fact in Supreme Court proceedings, see Smith vs. Kingsley, 19 Wendell 620 (1838). Note 4: Laws of 1801, Chap. 25; Revised Laws (1813), vol. 1, p. 143; Laws of 1815, Chap. 38. Note 5: Oliver L. Barbour, The Magistrate's Criminal Law (New York: 1841), pp. 337-49. Laws of 1801, Chap. 25. On the legal availability of the writ of error in criminal cases prior to 1830, see Lavett v. People; Eggleston v. People, 7 Cowen 339 (1827). The provisions on the writ of error in criminal cases were codified in Revised Statutes (1829), Part IV, Chap. 2, Title 6, Art. 2. On bills of exceptions in criminal cases, see Title 5, Sects. 21-25. | |
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York | |
