CINCINNATI, HAMILTON AND DAYTON RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
MCKEEN
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.
The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Company challenged a certification of questions from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which lacked a full quorum and failed to include a proper statement of facts as required. The Supreme Court held that such a certificate was irregular and did not comply with the Court's procedural rules, and therefore declined to answer the certified questions and dismissed the case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It appears therefrom that the case came on to be heard before the Circuit Judge and two District Judges holding that court, on January 13, 1892, the Circuit Justice-not being in attendance or able at that time to attend; that one of said judges was unwilling and another disqualified to sit upon the final hearing and determination of the appeal, and that it appearing to the court that the appeal involved questions of law of great importance which should be certified to the Supreme Court of the United States, it was thereupon ordered that certain questions and propositions of law be, and the same were thereby, certified to this court as questions or propositions concerning which the Circuit Court of Appeals desired the instruction of this court for their proper decision. After stating the questions, thefbertificate concluded with a direction to the clerk to transmit to the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United-States, in connection with the certificate, twenty copies of the printed record in the cause, and it is apparent that reference to that record is necessary in order to the correct determination of the questions..
On December 12, 1892, a motion was made in this court that the transcript of the record sent up by the Circuit Court of Appeals be received, and that the whole record and the cause be retained in this court for its consideration.
On December 19, this motion was denied, and it was further ordered that “ counsel be allowed to submit briefs on the questions whether the certificate in this cause is valid, and if so, whether it is sufficient under the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals to be proceeded upon by this court.” No suggestions have been made or briefs submitted by counsel.
We are of opinion that a certificate of questions or propositions of law concerning which a Circuit Court of Appeals desires the instruction of this court for their proper decision is irregular when a quorum of its members does not sit in the case, (United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414,) and that this certificate does not comply with rule thirty-seven of this court, inasmuch as it does not contain a proper statement of the facts on which the questions or propositions of law arise. While we have the power to require the whole record and cause to be sent up to us for consideration and decision, the sixth section of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, does not contemplate that questions or 'propositions of law shall be propounded and the entire record thereupon transmitted for us to answer such questions or propositions in view thereof. It is for us, when questions or propositions are certified, accompanied by a proper statement of the facts on which they arise, to determine whether we will answer them as propounded or direct the whole record to be placed before us in order to decide the matter in controversy in the same manner as if the case had been brought up by writ of error or appeal.
We must decline, therefore, to answer the questions contained in this certificate, and order the case to be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1913)…s thus certified, and not otherwise. Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 437; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63; United States v. Union Pacific Railway, 168 U. S. 505, 512; Emsheimer v. New Orleans, 186 U. S. 33; Cincinnati, Hamilton Railroad v. McKeen, 149 U. S. 259. It would therefore be improper for us at this time to enter into the question whether the clause, “a reasonable allowance for depreciation of property, if any” calls for an allowance on that account in making up the tax, where [*423] no depreciati…
-
Ricaud v. Am. Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1918)…, 137 U. S. 202; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250) it would be our duty to declare the certificate insufficient and to return it to the Circuit Court of Appeals without answering the questions. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton R. R. Co. v. McKeen, 149 U. S. 259; Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60; Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 422. But this recognition of the government under which General Pereyra was acting, as the legitimate Government of Mexico, makes the…
-
Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1894)…his court was desired in a particular case as to their proper decision. And reference was there made to the rules laid down in reference to certificates on division of opinion above adverted to. So in Cincinnati, Hamilton &c. Railroad Co. v. McKeen, 149 U. S. 259, it was held that the act of March 3, 1891, does not contemplate the certification of questions of law to be answered in view of the entire record in the cause, although this court may, if it sees fit, order the entire record to be sent up, and ther…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Emholt, 105 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1881)