NEW ORLEANS
v.
EMSHEIMER
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.
Emsheimer sued New Orleans in federal circuit court on behalf of himself and others to recover certificates of indebtedness issued by the city's Board of Metropolitan Police, but the circuit court dismissed the bill for lack of equity without ruling on the city's jurisdictional challenge. The Supreme Court dismissed the city's appeal because a party that succeeded in defeating a suit cannot appeal the decree merely because the lower court rested its decision on one ground rather than another ground the party had urged.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice
: Emsheimer filed his bill against the city of New Orleans, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking to collect certain certificates of indebtedness issued by the Board of Metropolitan Police of New Orleans through an accounting; to which the city demurred on the grounds that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction as such for want of proper averments of diverse citizenship; that necessary parties were lacking; and that the remedy was at law, and not in equity.
The Circuit Court held that the averments in respect of citizenship were sufficient, but sustained the demurrer on the ground, that there was no equity in the bill, and dismissed the bill “ for want of equity with full reservation of complainant’s right to sue and proceed at law.”
Subsequently an appeal was granted to this court, on application of the city,- “for the sole and exclusive-purpose of having a review of the finding, decision-, and decree of the court overruling the said first ground of the said demurrer, by which the. jurisdiction of this court and the sufficiency of the averments of the bill purporting to show the same are put at issue.”
. Defendant below sought .no affirmative relief, but simply to' defeat the. suit. In this it succeeded, and the decree is a bar to another suit-in equity on this cause of action so long as it stands unreversed.
The decree did not injure defendant but sustained its contention, and defendant is in no position to complain that it is aggrieved by its own success. The-decree cannot be reversed at its instance-because put on one of the grounds it urged rather than another. If'complainant brings an action'at law, and the'question of Federal jurisdiction is .in issue, or if this decree should be hereafter reversed and Federal and equity jurisdiction sustained, it will be time enough if final judgment or decree passes against defendant in the Circuit Court for the question of jurisdiction .to be certified. United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355.
Appeal dismissed'.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)…of divorce, is entitled to recognition in all other states under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867; Atherton v. Atherton, 181 U. S. 155, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544, 45 L. Ed. 794; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall, (U. S.) 108; 19 L. Ed. 604. This rule nevertheless is subject to the qualification stated in Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237, 47 L. Ed. 366, that a defect in jurisdiction by reason of foreign domic…
-
Flournoy v. Wiener, 321 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1944)…court where it appears that the answer cannot affect the result, United States v. Buzzo, 18 Wall. 125, 129; United States v. Britton, 108 U. S. 199, 207; Lederer v. McGarvey, 271 U. S. 342, 344. See also the rules stated in New Orleans v. Emsheimer, 181 U. S. 153; New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645; Lindheimer v. Illinois Tel. Co., 292 U. S. 151, 176; and in Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 85, and cases cited. The cause is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the view…
-
Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Beecher, 150 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1945)…134 U.S. 547, 556, 10 S.Ct. 620, 33 L.Ed. 1016. Compare Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U.S. 696, 700, 12 S.Ct. 103, 35 L.Ed. 906; New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U.S. 170, 16 S.Ct. 321, 40 L.Ed. 382; Codlin v. Kohlhausen, 181 U.S. 151, 21 S.Ct. 584, 45 L.Ed. 793; Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147, 151, 152, 24 S.Ct. 611, 48 L.Ed. 913; In re Lincoln, 202 U.S. 178, 26 S.Ct. 602, 50 L.Ed. 984; Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142, 7 Ann.Cas. 1018; United States v. Hamburg Ameri…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. McKAY, 161 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1896)
- United States v. Jahn, 155 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1894)