UNITED STATES
v.
RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1881-10-01
105 U.S. 263 Supreme Court of the United States (1881) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 26 L. Ed. 1021 · 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2118 · SCDB 1881-150
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error brought by the United States against a railroad company, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was less than $1,000 and no statutory exception applied to the United States as a party. The Court established that the United States enjoys no special jurisdictional privileges and must satisfy the same monetary threshold requirements as private parties when seeking writs of error or appeals from state supreme courts.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite,

Mr. Chief Justice Waite,

aftér stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Under the decision in Hecht v. Boughton (supra, p. 235), the case should have been brought here by appeal, and not by writ of error. There was no trial by a jury. But there is still another, objection to our jurisdiption. Under sects. 702 and 1909 of the Revised Statutes, writs of error and appeals from the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of Wyoming lie to this court onlywhen the amount in controversy exceeds $ 1,000, or the judgment is on a writ of habeas corpus, involving a question of personal freedom.. No exception is made in favor of. the United States, and this is not *an action brought for the enforcement of any revenue law. Consequently the United States are not entitled tp a. writ of error or appeal if the same remedy would not be afforded under similar circumstances to a private party. United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 586. The value of the matter in dispute is the amount of the judgment that has been recovered. This is less than $1,000. It follows that w„e have no jurisdiction, and the writ is

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Hailey, 118 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1886)
    …the transcript, we find that the suit was at law and the trial by a jury. Under such circumstances the only proper way of bringing it here for review would have been by writ of error. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; United States v. Railroad Co. 105 U. S. 263; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235; Woolf v. Hamilton, 108 U. S. 15. In point of fact, however, there has been neither a writ of error, nor an appeal, nor a citation, nor an appearance by the defendant or respondent. It is clear, therefore, we have n…
  • Nat'l Live Stock Bank of Chicago v. First Nat'l Bank of Geneseo, 203 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1906)
  • Story v. Black, 119 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1886)
    …not a; trial by jury. Under the Act of April-7; 1874, c.' 80, §-2, 18 Stat. 27,'the case should .have [*237] -been brought up by appeal’ and the writ of error' is therefore dismissed. Hecht v. Boughton, 105. U. S. 235; United States v. Railroad Co., 105 U. S. 263; Woolf v. Hamilton, 108 U. S. 15. The question is no longer opeh in this' court. ' The statutory rule is jurisdictional.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw