DAVIS AND RANKIN BUILDING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
BARBER
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.
Davis and Rankin Building and Manufacturing Company brought an action for breach of contract against subscribers, but the trial court sustained defendants' demurrers and rendered judgment in their favor; the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the jurisdictional question at issue was not certified to the Court by the Circuit Court of Appeals, as required by precedent.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
This was an action brought against certain subscribers to a contract to recover damages for its breach. Defendants demurred upon the grounds that the. court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of-the action, and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. The demurrers were sustained and judgment rendered .in favor of defendants on June 28, 1892. The writ of error from this court was sued out February 16, 1894. It does not appear by the record, but is conceded by counsel, that a writ of error was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 60 Fed. Rep. 465. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked upon the ground that the only question in the case was as to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, but that question was not certified to this court by the Circuit Court for decision, and the writ of error must be dismissed upon the authority of Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Colvin v. Jacksonville, ante, 368; and cases cited.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. United States, 4 F.2d 688 (7th Cir. 1924)…orego this requirement. In fact, it has been held that it cannot be waived. Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46, 23 L. Ed. 797; United States v. U. S. Fidelity Co., 236 U. S. 529, 35 S. Ct. 298, 59 L. Ed. 696; Jones v. East Tenn. R. R. Co., 157 U. S. 683, 15 S. Ct. 719, 39 L. Ed. 856; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 260-261, 5 S. Ct. 119, 28 L. Ed. 708; Phœnix Assur. Co. v. Lucker, 77 F. 248, 23 C. C. A. 139; Buckeye Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours P. Co., 223 F. 887, 139 C. C. A. 319…
-
Chappell v. United States, 160 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1896)…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 action for want of jurisdiction, and. the only que…
-
Detroit Edison Co. v. Stricker, 65 F.2d 126 (6th Cir. 1933)…taken cannot be regarded as directing the mind of the court to any specific alleged error, and do not save any questions for review. Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46, 55, 23 L. Ed. 797; Jones v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Railroad Company, 157 U. S. 682, 15 S. Ct. 719, 39 L. Ed. 856; Guerini Stove Company v. J. P. Carlin Construction Company, 248 U. S. 334, 348, 39 S. Ct. 102, 63 L. Ed. 275; Buckeye Powder Company v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, 223 F. 881 (C. C. A. 3); Sevensma v. United States, 2…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1894)
- Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1895)