COLVIN
v.
JACKSONVILLE

U.S. | 1895-04-01
No. 874
157 U.S. 368 Supreme Court of the United States (1895) Caution
Also reported at: 39 L. Ed. 736 · 15 S. Ct. 634 · SCDB 1894-166 · 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2210
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 a lower court decision because the appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirement under section five of the Judiciary Act of 1891, which explicitly requires a certificate from the Circuit Court presenting the jurisdictional question to the Supreme Court. The Court held that without such a certificate, the Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to hear the case.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Shiras,

Mr. Justice Shiras,

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

It is claimed on behalf of the appellant that the appeal may be sustained in this case because it is one in which the question of the jurisdiction of the court b^low is in issue, and thus within section five of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891.

But that section provides that “ in such case the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision,” and this record does not disclose any such certificate.

Accordingly no course is left open to this court but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any discussion of this question of practice is rendered unnecessary by the full treatment it received in the recent case of Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, wherein it was held that in the instance of an appeal upon the question of jurisdiction under the fifth section of the act, a certificate by the Circuit Court presenting such question for the determination of this court is explicitly and in terms-required in order to invoke the exercise by this court of its; appellate jurisdiction, and that the absence of such certificate is fatal to the maintenance of the appeal. See likewise Shields v. Coleman, ante, 168.

Appeal dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Chappell v. United States, 160 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1896)
    …to review its judgment, without certifying, or specifying the question of jurisdiction, this court cannot take jurisdiction under this clause of’ the statute. Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Moran v. Hagerman, 151 U. S. 329; Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368 ; Davis & Rankin Co. v. Barber, 157 U. S. 673; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687; Van Wagenen v. Sewall, ante, 369. If, indeed, the writ of error is allowed upon the petition of the original plaintiff, asking for a review of a judgment dismissing the acti…
  • Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1895)
  • Van Wagenen v. Sewall, 160 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1896)
    …Court from the court below for decision.” There is an entire absence of such certificate in this case — an absence which was held to be fatal to the appeal in Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Moran v. Hagerman, 151 U. S. 329; Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368; and Davis & Rankin Building Company v. Barber, 157 17. S. 673. It is true that in In re Lehigh Min. and Mfg. Co., 156 U. S. 322, we held that the certificate was not necessary, inasmuch as it appeared in the decree that the question involved was on…

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