Summary

Mahlon Pitney Nalle v. Oyster — Opinion of the Court

Respecting the necessity for an exception to the court's ruling in sustaining the demurrer to the first count, counsel for defendants in error have not attempted to uphold the position taken by the court of appeals. The court cited no statute, rule, or other authority for its position, and we have been unable to find any.
The practice of bills of exceptions is statutory. By the ancient common law, a writ of error lay only for an error in law apparent upon the judgment roll,-what is now called the 'strict record,'-or for an error in fact, such as the death of a party before judgment.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Nalle v. Oyster — Opinion of the Court

These pleadings show that upon the plaintiff's own application for a mandamus the defendants, being the board of education, were required to show why they had dismissed her. They showed it by averring that upon examination they had ascertained her to be lacking in the qualifications of a teacher, and had dismissed her accordingly.
The insistence is that even such a defense, if made with malice and without probable cause, may be the subject of an action of libel.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Nalle v. Oyster — Opinion of the Court

Except as modified by statute, the practice of the courts of the District of Columbia is modeled upon that which obtained in the courts of Maryland at the time of the cession. Act of February 27, 1801, § 1 (2 Stat. at L. 103, chap. 15) . By act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. at L. 872, chap. 392) , Congress provided for the making and publication of a compilation of the laws then in force in the District, to be made by commissioners appointed by the supreme court of the district.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature