CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN STATE PROCEDURE

Authors

Abstract

In American Surety Company v. Baldwin the Surety Company complained that the procedure in Idaho deprived it of a hearing upon its liability on a supersedeas bond. After judgment was given on the bond the Surety Company moved to vacate the order and the motion was granted. Baldwin took an appeal from this order to the Supreme Court of Idaho which reversed the trial court. The sole question raised by the motion was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to give judgment. Under the Idaho practice an appeal from the judgment of the court was the proper method to review errors of the trial court. It was held that the state practice did not deny due process. American Surety Company v. Baldwin, (U.S. 1932) 53 Sup. Ct. 98.

Recommended Citation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN STATE PROCEDURE, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 430 (1933).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol31/iss3/16