HASKINS
v.
ST. LOUIS & SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY & ANOTHER

U.S. | 1883-10-29
109 U.S. 106 Supreme Court of the United States (1883) Caution
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 873 · 3 S. Ct. 72 · 1883 U.S. LEXIS 938 · SCDB 1883-016
Cited by 12 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 an appeal from Haskins v. St. Louis & Southeastern Railway Company for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal bond was never properly approved by a judge or justice as required by law, and there was no evidence that the appellee had been served with proper notice. The Court held that the power to approve appeal security cannot be delegated to a clerk or commissioner, and that without affirmative proof of proper jurisdiction over the appellee, the Court cannot proceed.

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

Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

We have no jurisdiction in this-case. „The appellee has not appeared and has never been served with a citation. The decree was entered oh the 14th of June, 1879, and at the foot of the entry is the following: “ Petitioner prays an appeal, which is granted upon bond and security being given, according to law, within thirty days.” A copy of what purports to be an appeal bond, filed on the 3d of July, 1879, is found in the transcript, but there is no evidence that it was ever approved or taken as good.and sufficient security by the court or'any justice or judge thereof. A commissioner of the circuit court has certified that he knew the obligors to be good and responsible for any cost that might accrue in the cause, but that is not enough. Sec. 1000 of the Revised Statutes requires the justice or judge signing the citation to take the security. ' This power cannot be delegated to the clerk or to a commissioner. O'Reilly v. Edrington, 96 U. S. 724, 726. If the appeal is allowed in open court the security may be taken by the court, and no citation is necessary, but if the security is not given until after the term is over, a citation must be issued and served. Sage v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S. 712, 715. Unless an appellee voluntarily appears, we cannot proceed against Mm if the record does not show affirmatively that he has been brought within our jurisdiction by proper notice.

The agpjpeal is dismissed for., want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Elliott v. Empire Natural GAS Co., 4 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1925)
    …of determining its sum or value, to estimate its collateral effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties.” See, also, Parker v. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1, 1 S. Ct. 14, 27 L. Ed. 72. In Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108, 3 S. Ct. 70, 27 L. Ed. 873, the Supreme Court followed Elgin v. Marshall, supra, staging that jurisdiction depended on “the matter which is directly in dispute in the particular cause in which the judgment or decree sought to be reviewed has been rendered,” and that the court…
  • The Quinault Tribe OF Indians OF the Quinault Reservation IN the State OF Wash. v. Gallagher, 368 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1966)
    …evenues realized .as the result of withdrawal of state jurisdiction, would be purely collateral to the actual right asserted — the right to be free of state jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court said in Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U.S. 108, 3 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed. 873, following Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578, 1 S.Ct. 484, 27 L.Ed. 249, jurisdiction depends upon the matter directly in dispute in the particular cause, and the •court is not permitted, for the purpose of determining its sum or value, to estimate it…
  • Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Moyle et ux., 116 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1940)
    …intiff had title to the land, and ‘that in this way the verdict and judgment may estop the parties in another suit, but that will be a collateral, not. the direct, effect of the judgment.’ See, also, Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U.S. 108, 3 S.Ct. 70 [27 L.Ed. 873], In Bruce v. [Manchester & Keene] Railroad Co., 117 U. S. 514, 6 S.Ct. 849 [29 L.Ed. 990], suit was brought to collect interest due on certain railroad bonds by the foreclosure of a mortgage made to trustees to secure a series of bonds amounting to…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw