DUBLIN TOWNSHIP
v.
MILFORD SAVINGS INSTITUTION

U.S. | 1888-12-10
No. 943
128 U.S. 510 Supreme Court of the United States (1888) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 32 L. Ed. 533 · 9 S. Ct. 148 · 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2245 · SCDB 1888-059
Cited by 14 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

Dublin Township sought review of a case in the Supreme Court through a certificate of division of opinion, but the Court dismissed the writ for lack of jurisdiction because the certified questions were not clearly and precisely stated as distinct points of law, instead requiring the Court to search through various documents and statutory provisions to discern the intended legal issues. The decision reinforced the established rule that certificates of division must present clear, specific legal propositions rather than diffuse factual or mixed questions.

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

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Geay,

Mr. Justice Geay,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

By the rules often laid down in former cases, and restated at the last term in Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, and at the present term in Fire Lnsurance Association v. Wickham, ante, 426, this court cannot take jurisdiction of this case, because, besides the manifest attempt to refer ,to this court for decision substantially the whole case by the device of splitting it up into several questions, neither of. the questions certified presents a distinct point or proposition of law, clearly and precisely stated; but each requires this court to find out for itself the point intended to be presented, by searching through the allegations of the answer and the provisions of the statute relied on by the plaintiff, and by also examining either the whole constitution of the State, or else reports or records of decisions óf its courts, referred to in the answer and made part thereof.

The certificate is even more irregular and insufficient than one undertaking to present the question, arising on demurrer or otherwise, whether an indictment, or a count therein, sets forth any offence, which this court has constantly held not to be a proper subject of a certificate of division of opinion. United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208 ; United States v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327.

Writ of error 'dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1890)
    …ge Brewer as to section 5469, in United States v. Falkenhainer, 21 Fed. Rep. 625. Contra, United States v. Long, 10 Fed. Rep. 879. The. first question certified is in a form frequently disapproved of. Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution, 128 U. S. 510, 514; United States v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327; United States v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50. The second question is answered in the affirmative and it will be So certified.…
  • United States v. Brewer, 139 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1891)
    …ection and the result- thereof.” The first two questions certified are in such a general form that this court cannot answer them, as has been repeatedly held. United States v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327; Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution, 128 U. S. 510, 514; United States, v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50; United States v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624, 632. As to questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, we are of opinion that they must be answered in the negative. The statutes of Tennessee which relate particularly to the que…
  • Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1894)
    …t embrace [*327] the whole case, even where its decision turned upon matter of law only, and even though it were split up in the form of questions. Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426; Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution, 128 U. S. 510. The same rules were applicable to the certificate of points on division of opinion on the hearing or trial of criminal proceedings under sections 651 and 697. United States v. Hall, 131. U. S. 50; United States v. Perrin, 131 U. S. 55. And prior to…

Previewing 3 of 7 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