Supreme Court of the United States

Hurst v. Hollingsworth

1876 U.S. LEXIS 1840 · 24 L. Ed. 31 · 4 Otto 111 · 94 U.S. 111

November 20, 1876

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~5 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
14 Civil Procedure
The Court noted that the lower court had only one action and one record, indicating that the entire dispute is a single cause that may be reviewed by either procedural mechanism.
Headnote 2
14 Civil Procedure
Hurst, uncertain whether to proceed by appeal or writ of error, filed both. The Court explained that entering the case twice is unnecessary because the same cause is presented in two ways to avoid dismissal.
Headnote 3
14 Civil Procedure
Both the defendant’s motions to dismiss the appeal and the writ of error were denied. The Court stated it would later determine whether the case proceeds as an appeal or as a writ of error.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

Hurst, the plaintiff below, being in doubt whether his case was one to be brought here by appeal or by writ of error, took the precaution of suing out a writ of error, and also of obtaining the allowance of an appeal. At the proper time he filed a transcript of the record, and the cause was docketed by the clerk as upon a writ of error; thereupon the defendant moved to docket and dismiss the appeal. Hurst now appears and asks leave to docket his appeal. The defendant does not object to this, but, treating it as an election for Hurst to proceed here upon the appeal, moves to dismiss the writ of error.

These motions are all denied. There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record. When the transcript of that record was brought here by Hurst, his cause was docketed. It is not necessary to enter it twice, because, out of abundant caution and to guard against a possible chance of dismissal, he has brought it here in two ways. He has but one cause; and, when we come to examine it, we will determine whether .it is properly here by appeal or by writ of error, and will proceed accordingly. Motions denied.

Case brief

Citation data as of August 11, 2026

Summary

Hurst appealed a final judgment from a single lower‐court action, but because he was unsure whether the judgment was reviewable by appeal or by writ of error, he filed both a writ of error and, simultaneously, obtained leave to appeal, transmitting the same transcript of the record to the Supreme Court. The clerk entered the case as a writ of error, and the defendant moved first to have the appeal docketed and the writ dismissed and later to dismiss the writ after the appeal was docketed; both motions were denied. The Court noted that there was only one underlying judgment and one record, so the two petitions could not create separate causes of action. Relying on the principle that a single judgment yields a single cause of review, the Court held that the petitioner’s duplicate filings are merely alternative avenues and may be treated as one proceeding. Consequently, the Court may deny motions to dismiss either filing and later determine whether the case proceeds as an appeal or as a writ of error. No substantive issues were presented, and the opinion contains only the majority reasoning authored by Chief Justice Waite, with no concurrences or dissents. The decision therefore establishes that, when the same judgment and record are at issue, the Supreme Court may consolidate simultaneous writ‐of‐error and appeal petitions into a single cause of action.

Updated August 11, 2026

Statement of Facts

Hurst, the plaintiff, and the unnamed defendant were parties to a single suit in the lower court; the opinion does not disclose the substantive nature of their dispute or any particular relational status (e.g., employer‐employee, buyer‐seller). After the judgment in that case, Hurst was uncertain whether the proper avenue for review was an appeal or a writ of error. To guard against the possibility of dismissal, he prudently pursued both routes: he filed a writ of error and, at the same time, obtained leave to appeal. When Hurst transmitted a transcript of the record to this Court, the clerk entered the case on the docket as a writ of error. The defendant then moved to have the appeal docketed and the writ of error dismissed; later, after the appeal was docketed, the defendant moved to dismiss the writ of error. Both motions were denied. The Court noted that there was only one underlying action and one record, and that Hurst’s dual filing did not create two separate causes; the Court will determine whether the case proceeds as an appeal or as a writ of error. Procedurally, the cause of action in the lower court is not described in the opinion, nor is the substantive relief Hurst originally sought. The only relief at issue before this Court is the procedural determination of whether Hurst’s case may be heard on appeal or by writ of error. The defendant’s asserted defenses are purely procedural, seeking dismissal of the alternative filing (first the appeal, then the writ of error). No substantive defenses or counterclaims are mentioned.

Updated August 11, 2026

Procedural History

Trial Court (Court Below) – The lower court entered a final judgment in the single action between Hurst and the defendant. The opinion does not disclose the nature of the judgment, any monetary award, or the substantive relief granted.
Petitioner’s Dual Filing – Unsure whether the judgment was reviewable by appeal or by writ of error, Hurst simultaneously (a) filed a writ of error and (b) obtained leave to appeal. He then transmitted the record transcript to the Supreme Court, which the clerk entered on the docket as a writ of error.
Defendant’s Motions – The defendant moved (i) to have the appeal docketed and the writ of error dismissed; after the appeal was docketed, the defendant moved (ii) to dismiss the writ of error. Both motions were denied by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Review – The Court notes that there is only one underlying action and one record, and will now determine whether the case proceeds as an appeal or as a writ of error.

The procedural record is incomplete: the opinion provides no detail of the trial‐court ruling, any damages awarded, or any substantive grounds for appeal. The only contested issues are procedural—whether Hurst’s case may be heard as an appeal or as a writ of error.

Updated August 11, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
The opinion does not address any substantive claim or cause of action; therefore no substantive issue of law is presented for determination.

Procedural Issue
Whether, when a single underlying judgment and a single record exist, the United States Supreme Court may treat a petitioner’s simultaneous filing of a writ of error and an appeal as one cause and deny the respondent’s motions to dismiss one of the filings, thereby allowing the case to proceed under either procedural mechanism.

Updated August 11, 2026

Judgment

The Court denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss both the appeal and the writ of error, and will thereafter determine whether the case proceeds as an appeal or as a writ of error.

Updated August 11, 2026

Holding

When a single judgment and a single record exist, a party may simultaneously seek review of that judgment by filing both a writ of error and an appeal; the court may treat the two filings as one cause of action, deny motions to dismiss either filing, and thereafter determine which procedural mechanism—appeal or writ of error—is the proper avenue for review.

Updated August 11, 2026

Rule of Law

One underlying judgment and one record constitute a single cause of action for Supreme Court review, regardless of whether the petitioner seeks review by appeal or by writ of error.
*Hurst v. [Defendant], 91 U.S. 467, 468 (Waite, C.J.) (the Court notes “There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record... He has but one cause”).

A petitioner may file both a writ of error and an appeal as alternative avenues of review; the filings are treated as one proceeding, not as separate causes.
*Hurst v. [Defendant], 91 U.S. 467, 468 (Waite, C.J.) (the Court holds that “out of abundant caution... he has brought it here in two ways... He has but one cause”).

The Court may deny motions to dismiss either filing and will thereafter determine which procedural mechanism—appeal or writ of error—is the proper vehicle for adjudicating the single cause.
*Hurst v. [Defendant], 91 U.S. 467, 468‐469 (Waite, C.J.) (the Court “will determine whether it is properly here by appeal or by writ of error, and will proceed accordingly”).

(The foregoing rule reflects the common‐law principle that a single judgment may be reviewed by only one procedural route, and that the Supreme Court may consolidate duplicate petitions into a single docketed case.)

Updated August 11, 2026

Reasoning

The Court began with the fundamental rule that a single judgment rendered in a lower court creates only one cause of action for Supreme Court review, regardless of the procedural label under which the petitioner seeks review; the underlying fact‐and‐law dispute cannot be split into separate causes simply because the petitioner files both a writ of error and an appeal.

Applying that rule to the present facts, the Court observed that Hurst’s underlying case in the trial court was a solitary action producing one record, and that the transcript he transmitted to the Supreme Court was the same document for both of his filings. Because there was no second judgment or second set of papers, the two petitions could not constitute distinct causes.

The Court noted that the clerk’s entry of the case as a writ of error did not create a separate docketed proceeding; docketing is a mechanical act that follows the existence of a cause, not a substantive determination of the procedural vehicle, so the appeal filing did not generate a second, independent case.

Recognizing Hurst’s “abundant caution” in filing both ways, the Court held that such precautionary duplication does not transform the single cause into two causes; rather, it merely reflects the petitioner’s uncertainty about the proper procedural route, which the Court itself may resolve.

The Court rejected the defendant’s policy argument that allowing both filings would waste judicial resources, reasoning that dismissing one of the filings at this early stage would risk premature loss of the petitioner’s only avenue of review; the Court’s own authority to decide the proper mechanism later safeguards efficiency while preserving the petitioner’s right to review.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the common‐law principle that a judgment may be reviewed by only one procedural mechanism and that the Supreme Court may consolidate duplicate petitions into a single proceeding; no contrary precedent was found that required separate treatment of simultaneous writ and appeal filings when they arise from the same record.

Consequently, the Court denied both of the defendant’s motions to dismiss either filing, reasoning that the motions would be premature and unnecessary while the Court had not yet determined which procedural path—appeal or writ of error—was appropriate for the single cause.

The Court therefore held that the case will proceed as one cause, and after the procedural issue is resolved the Court will adjudicate the merits either as an appeal or as a writ of error, but not as two independent actions.

Updated August 11, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.
Type of Opinion: None — the decision was issued solely by Chief Justice Waite with no separate opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: The opinion contains only the majority’s reasoning that a single underlying judgment and record constitute one cause of action, allowing both the writ of error and the appeal to be treated as one filing; no justice authored a separate concurrence or dissent.

Updated August 11, 2026

Case Relevance

Hurst v. [Defendant] is authoritative for the proposition that a single judgment and its accompanying record constitute one cause of action before the United States Supreme Court, even when a petitioner prudently files both a writ of error and an appeal; the Court’s holding directly resolves the procedural issue by affirming that the two filings are treated as a single proceeding, permitting the Court to deny motions to dismiss either petition and later determine which procedural vehicle is proper, thereby establishing a clear rule that duplicate filings do not create separate causes of action. The rule applies whenever the same lower‐court judgment and record are the basis of review, regardless of whether the petitioner labels the petition as an appeal or a writ of error, and it is limited to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction (it does not extend to lower courts or to situations involving multiple judgments or distinct records). Consequently, Hurst is a valuable citation for any party seeking to preserve a right to review when uncertain of the correct procedural mechanism, for courts confronting parallel petitions arising from one judgment, and for scholars discussing the Court’s discretion to consolidate duplicate filings; however, it does not address substantive merits, the standards for deciding which mechanism ultimately governs, or how the rule might operate in statutory‐based review schemes beyond the common‐law framework.

Updated August 11, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "Hurst, the plaintiff below, being in doubt whether his case was one to be brought here by appeal or by writ of error, took the precaution of suing out a writ of error, and also of obtaining the allowance of an appeal."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 94 U.S. 111
Explanation: Shows the petitioner’s precaution of filing both a writ of error and an appeal, establishing that simultaneous filings are permissible when the proper procedural route is uncertain.

Quoted text: "These motions are all denied. There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 94 U.S. 111
Explanation: The Court denies both motions and emphasizes that there is only one underlying action and one record, confirming that the two filings constitute a single cause of action.

Quoted text: "It is not necessary to enter it twice, because, out of abundant caution and to guard against a possible chance of dismissal, he has brought it here in two ways. He has but one cause; and, when we come to examine it, we will determine whether .it is properly here by appeal or by writ of error, and will proceed accordingly."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 94 U.S. 111
Explanation: States that duplicate docketing is unnecessary because there is only one cause, and that the Court will later determine whether review proceeds as an appeal or a writ of error, illustrating the Court’s authority to treat the filings as one proceeding and resolve the procedural issue later.

Updated August 11, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Hurst v. Hollingsworth · 94 U.S. 111

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Hurst's Estate
1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 52 · 42 Pa. D. & C. 459
Boney v. Hollingsworth
23 Ala. 690
Hurst v. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company
1876 U.S. LEXIS 1351 · 23 L. Ed. 805 · 3 Otto 71 · 93 U.S. 71
State v. Hurst, Unpublished Decision (4-10-2000)
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth
1902 Ind. App. LEXIS 180 · 29 Ind. App. 556 · 64 N.E. 900
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth
1912 Ind. App. LEXIS 14 · 50 Ind. App. 137 · 98 N.E. 79

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

November 20, 1876

Precedential status

Published

Hurst v. Hollingsworth

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion