Evans v. Vanbibber
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Information Experts, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2012)
- Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1971)
- Grand Trunk Western Railroad v. Boyd (Mich. 1948)
- White v. United Mills, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1948)
- Kilgore v. the Farmers Union Oil Co. of Epping (N.D. 1946)
- In re the Estate of Winter (N.J. 1945)
- Camden Trust Co. v. Cramer (N.J. 1945)
- Moody Bible Institute v. Pettibone (Ill. App. Ct. 1937)
- Bater v. Cleaver (N.J. 1935)
- Morgan v. Gollehon (Va. 1929)
- Schlitz v. Thomas (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
- Riley v. Riley (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1921)
- Gaulden v. Bellotte (Fla. 1920)
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. Federal Trust Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1917)
- Aetna Ins. v. Hann (Ala. 1916)
- Frye Pulpwood Co. v. Ray (Me. 1915)
- O'Donnell v. McCann (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1910)
- Taylor v. Thomas (New York Supreme Court 1907)
- Van Dyke v. Van Dyke (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1906)
- Wheedon v. Nichols (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1906)
- Nason v. Fowler (N.H. 1900)
- Laird v. Chicago & Alton Railroad (Mo. Ct. App. 1899)
- Harper v. Standard Oil Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1899)
- State ex rel. Marquett, Deweese & Hall v. Baushausen (Neb. 1896)
- Fairly v. Nash (Miss. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Maynard moved in the Supreme Court for a judgment in favor of a surety against Ms principal. The court having intimated a doubt as to its jurisdiction, the motion was twice postponed; when finally the same being pressed by Maynard,
said:
It is assumed that under the act of 1801, this court would .have. had jurisdiction to render judgment in such a casé.
At that time all the courts of this State had original jurisdiction. Now this court has no original jurisdiction except in certain specified cases'. The act of 1809, passed in the' year that this court was' organized, is very different in its terms from the act of 1801, and does not confer such.jurisdiction. -This motion is an original proceeding and must be denied.
Motion denied.
Neither the act of 1801, chapter 15, nor the act of 1809, chapter 69, gives the Supreme Court such jurisdiction. Waters v. Lewis, 9 Yerg. 15, 17. In Catron v. Breedlove, 2 Yerg. 499, and in Wilson v. Wilson, 10 Yerg. 200, 201, the Supreme Court struck from the files bills of review because such' bills are incidents of original jurisdiction. Upon like grounds in King v. Hampton, 8 Hayw. 59.60, a mandamus was.reused to compel the Circuit Court to proceed to the trial of a cause. But it was then said that ■ the Supreme Court would issue any-writ in aid of its appellate j urisdiction.
And-so mandamus lies in the Supreme Court to compel an inferior Court to sign a bill of exceptions upon an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court. State v. Hall, 3 Cold. 255. But not to compel inferió:^ judge to hear a petition for habeas corpus, this not being in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, State v. Elmore 6 Cold. 528.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.