Lord v. Veazie

Supreme Court of the United States · 1850 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtscollusive suitfeigned controversyamicable actionadverse interestsreal disputepro forma judgmentnullity

Facts

The record and affidavits showed that the contract set out in the pleadings was made for the purpose of instituting this suit and that there was no real dispute between plaintiff and defendant. Their interests were the same, and they sought the Court's opinion on a legal question in which they shared a common interest adverse to third persons who were not parties and had no opportunity to be heard below. The parties presented the matter on an agreed statement of facts and obtained a pro forma judgment by mutual consent without an actual judicial decision. The legal question affected property rights of great value.

Issue

Whether a writ of error may lie from a pro forma judgment where the supposed adversaries are not genuinely adverse, but instead have the same interest and have arranged a colorable suit to obtain the Court's opinion on a question of law affecting absent third parties.

Rule

Courts of justice decide rights only where there is a real and substantial controversy between parties with adverse interests. A mere colorable or feigned dispute brought to obtain a judicial opinion on a question of law for the parties' own purposes is an abuse of the judicial process; a judgment procured under such circumstances is a nullity, and no writ of error will lie upon it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Dana Mercer and Eli Rowan jointly own a shipping terminal. To obtain a federal appellate ruling that would help them defeat expected claims by neighboring landowners, they draft a side agreement, sue each other on it in federal court, submit a stipulated record, and ask the trial judge to enter judgment for Dana by consent.

If the arrangement is later revealed on appeal, what is the best disposition?

Explanation. Courts decide rights only when genuinely adverse parties present a real controversy. Where the parties share the same interest and manufacture a suit to procure a legal ruling for their own purposes, the proceeding is a feigned controversy. A judgment entered by consent in that setting is no judgment in the eye of the law, but a nullity, and cannot support appellate review. (Derived from Lord v. Veazie (1850).)