MERRITT
v.
BOWDOIN COLLEGE

U.S. | 1898-03-14
No. 505
The Chief Justice did not sit in this case nor participate in ' its decision.
169 U.S. 551 Supreme Court of the United States (1898) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 42 L. Ed. 850 · 18 S. Ct. 415 · SCDB 1897-093 · 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1507
Cited by 2 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

In Merritt v. Bowdoin College, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal brought directly from the Circuit Court on the ground that it involved the construction or application of the Constitution. The Court held that while a plea in abatement raising questions about the improper joinder of parties under federal jurisdiction statutes did implicate the Circuit Court's jurisdiction, it did not involve any constitutional issue and therefore did not fall within the appellate jurisdiction granted by the 1891 act allowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court in constitutional cases. The decision established that jurisdictional defects arising from alleged improper party joinder under federal statute, though affecting a court's power to proceed, are distinct from questions requiring constitutional construction or application.


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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.

The. object of the plea in abatement was to bring about a dismissal of the suit under the fifth section of the act of March 3,1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470. That section provides for the dismissal of a suit in a Circuit Court of the United States if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court at any time that the parties to it “have been improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under this act.”

, By the act of March 3,1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, appeals or writs of error may be taken from the District Courts or the Circuit Courts directly to this court in certain cases, among which are cases in which the “jurisdiction"of the court is in issue,” and cases that involve “ the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States.” The former appeal was dismissed upon the ground that a direct appeal to this court would not lie on an issue as to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court unless the question of jurisdiction was certified during the term at which the final decree was rendered.

It is now sought to bring the case here by appeal directly from the Circuit Court upon the ground that it involves the “construction or application of the Constitution of the United States.” This position cannot be sustained. When it appears that parties have been improperly or collusively made -or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under the act of 1875, then the Circuit Court is, within the meaning of the act of 1891, without jurisdiction to proceed. But the plea in this ca.se raised no question as to the constitutionality of the. act of 1.875, and called for no order or judgment that would require a construction or application of the Constitution, although an allowance of the plea may have involved the application of an act of Congress. The plea set out certain facts which, if found to be true, required the dismissal of the suit as one of which the court could not take cognizance under the statute regulating the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States. While the issue involved the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, it did, not involve or require, within the meaning .of the act of March 3,1891, either the construction or application of the Constitution.

For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss the present appeal is sustained, and the appeal is

Dismissed.

The Chief Justice did not sit in this case nor participate in ' its decision.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • M. v. Kirkpatrick, 231 U.S. 736 (U.S. 1913)
    …Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Merritt v. Bowdoin College, 169 U. S. 551, 556.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw