Sherburne Sears, in Error v. Joseph R. Eastburn, 13 L. Ed. 381 (1850). · Go Syfert
Sherburne Sears, in Error v. Joseph R. Eastburn, 13 L. Ed. 381 (1850). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Good v. United States Department of Education, The (ksd, 2022-06-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Good v. United States Department of Education, The
D. Kan. · 2022 · confidence medium
Aug. 6, 2010) (first quoting Lane v. Pena, 51 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); then citing Thomas v. Pierce, 662 F. Supp. 519, 523 (D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Internal Revenue Service
D. Kan. · 2021 · confidence medium
Kan. 1987)). 17 Id. (quoting Lane v. Pena, 51 U.S. 187, 192 (1996)) (citing Shaw v. United States, 213 F.3d 545, 548 (10th Cir. 2000)). 18 Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)). district court.19 Further, the taxpayer first must have satisfied the conditions set forth in 26 U.S.C. §7422 (a), which provides: No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sherburne Sears, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
Joseph R. Eastburn
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 20, 1850.
13 L. Ed. 381
It was argued by Mr. Sewall, for the plaintiff in error.
Taney.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

delivered the opinion of tne court.

The point' in this case is a narrow' one, and concerns only the practice in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama.

It appears that in 1821 an act was passed by the legislature of that State to abolish fictitious proceedings in ejectment; and to substitute in their place the action of trespass, for the purpose of trying the title to lands and recovering the possession.

In the ease before us, an action of trespass was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, for the purpose of recovering a certain parcel of land to which he claimed title. The writ was indorsed in the manner required by the statute of Alabama; and the declaratioñ was in the usual form of - an action of trespass. There does not appear to have been either plea or demurrer put in by the defendant, nor'any issue of fact or law joined between the parties. But the defendant by his counsel moved the court to dismiss thé suit, upon the ground that the law of the State was not in force in the Circuit Court of the United States; and the district judge then holding the Circuit Court, being of that opinion, dismissed the suit, and gave judgment in favoi of the defendant for his costs.

This decision is evidently erroneous. The act of May, 1828 (4 Stat. at .Large, 278), in express terms, directs that the .forms and modes of proceeding in the courts of the United States, in suits at common law in the States admitted into the Union since 1789, shall be the same with those of the highest court of original jurisdiction in the State. Alabama is one of the States admitted since 1789; and the act of Congress, therefore, makes it obligatory upon the courts of the United States to conform in their mode of proceeding to the law of the State.. The law of the State of itself, undoubtedly, was not obligatory upon the courts of the United States. But'it is made so by the act of Congress.

The judgment of the Circuit. Court must therefore be reversed, with costs.

[*190] Order.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof,-it is now here ordered and adjudged by this ' court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause bé, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions for further proceedings to be had therein, in conformity to the opinion of this court, and as to law and justice shall appertain,- .