Supreme Court of 1869

S

Southeast US

Member
In 1869 the Supreme Court had 8 Members. These days there is an odd number which makes more sense, but my question is about a 4-4 Tie. Would the side that the Chief Justice would be on, be the Tie Breaker? Or how did that work back then.

Thanks
 
Southeast US said:
In 1869 the Supreme Court had 8 Members. These days there is an odd number which makes more sense, but my question is about a 4-4 Tie. Would the side that the Chief Justice would be on, be the Tie Breaker? Or how did that work back then.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Here's an article that might answer your questions. Kinda. I'm sure one of the attorney volunteers will pop in and answer your thread.

Why Do 9 Justices Serve on the Supreme Court?
 
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

Primary Holding
States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

=============================================

U.S. Supreme Court
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 700 700 (1868)
Texas v. White

74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700


Syllabus

1. The word "State" describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country, or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently, it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times, it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.

2. In the Constitution, the term "State" most frequently expresses the combined idea, just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries and organised under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.

3. But the term is also used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. In this sense, it is used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

5. But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

7. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give





Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
 
Even with an odd number of members, it is not uncommon for cases to be heard by an even number of justices. Sometimes there will be a vacancy on the Court and, more commonly, sometimes a justice will have to recuse him/herself from a particular case (e.g., because he/she owns stock in one of the parties).

A tie is not decided in favor of whatever the Chief Justice voted for. If there's a tie, the ruling of the lower court stands.


Southeast US said:
What if there was no Lower Court Ruling?

Or was there one in Texas vs White in 1869?
Click to expand...

No, there was no lower court ruling in that case, which was filed pursuant to the Court's original jurisdiction. However, that case was decided by a 5-3 margin. It's worth pointing out that, in many courts in many states, there are an even number of jury members.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top