KIRWAN
v.
MURPHY

U.S. | 1898-04-25
No. 550
170 U.S. 205 Supreme Court of the United States (1898) Caution
Also reported at: 42 L. Ed. 1009 · 18 S. Ct. 592 · 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1538 · SCDB 1897-114
Cited by 9 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 an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction that the Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction because no statute authorized appeals to the Supreme Court from interlocutory orders—only from final judgments or decrees. The decision established that while Circuit Courts of Appeals could review interlocutory injunction orders under specific statutory authorization, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extended only to final decisions.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

By the sixth section of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 20 Stat. 826, the judgments or decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are made final iii that court in the classes of cases, therein enumerated, of which the present is not one, and it is provided that in all cases not. made final, there shall be of -right, within one year an appeal or .writ of error or review of the case .by this court, where the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars exclusive of costs.

But this applies only to final orders, judgments or decrees. Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; Keystone Iron Company v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; American Construction Company v. Jacksonville Railway Company, 148 U. S. 372, 378.

The order sought to be reviewed was simply an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court for the issue of a temporary injunction, which order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals without direction. If we should take jurisdiction, it is this order we should revise in also reviewing that of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and our mandate would go directly to the Circuit. Court. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Behlmer, 169 U. S. 644.

In Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, it was-held that the Circuit Courts of Appeals on an appeal from-an interlocutory order or decree of the Circuit Courts granting án injunction and ordering an accounting in a patent suit, might-consider and decide the case on its merits, an'd thereupon render or direct a final-decree dismissing the bill; and this course might be pursued in other cases. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651. Here, however, the Court of Appeals did not finally determine the case by its judgment, and whether the temporary injunction should be made permanent or not, was left to the Circuit Court to decide when the final decree was entered.

And we may add, that in concluding its opinion, the Circuit Court of Appeals said: “In view of these considerations, we, are not satisfied that an error was committed -in awarding a •temporary injunction. It cannot be said, we think, that the injunction was improvidently issued, and the order appealed, from is therefore affirmed.” 49 U. S. App. 658.

Moreover, by section six, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are empowered to review final decisions of the District and. Circuit Courts, except where cases are carried, under section five, directly to this court, but, by the seventh section, as amended by the act of February 19, 1895, 2;j Stat. 666, c. 96, jurisdiction is given to .the Courts of Appeals from appeals from interlocutory orders in injunction proceedings. . And, it was tinder that section that the appeal was. taken to -the Court of Appeals in this case.

But there is no provision in the act of March 3, 1891, or any other'act, authorizing an appeal to this court from inter-, locutory orders or decrees, and whether certiorari would lie is a question that does not arise. In re Tampa Suburban Railroad Company, 168 U. S. 583.

Appeal dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1910)
    …the whole case and every matter in controversy in it decided in a single appeal.” McLish v. Roff, supra, has been followed and approved in this court. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry., 148 U. S. 372; Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 205, 209; Ex parte National Enameling Co., 201 U. S. 156. It may, therefore, be regarded as the settled practice of this court that a case cannot be brought' here by piecemeal, and is only to be reviewed here after final judgment by direct appeal or wr…
  • Kingman v. W. Mfg. Co., 170 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1898)
    …directly to this court, but by the seventh section, as amended by the act of February 19, 1895, c. 96, 28 Stat. 6.66, jurisdiction is given to the Courts of Appeals from appeals from interlocutory orders in injunction proceedings. Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 205. This provision is an exception to the general rule, and while the lánguage of section eleven refers to the entry of the order, judgment or decree, yet the meaning must be confined to final orders, judgments or decrees. The question is, then, whet…
  • Kirwan v. Murphy, 189 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1903)

Previewing 3 of 5 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