HALLOWELL
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1908-03-23
No. 175
209 U.S. 101 Supreme Court of the United States (1908) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 52 L. Ed. 702 · 28 S. Ct. 498 · SCDB 1907-160 · 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1724
Cited by 16 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

Hallowell involved a defective certification under the Judiciary Act of 1891 whereby a Circuit Court of Appeals sought instruction from the Supreme Court on questions that were mixed questions of law and fact rather than distinct propositions of law. The Supreme Court held that the certificate was improper and must be dismissed because it essentially asked the Court to review the entire case and determine the proper verdict rather than address a clearly stated legal question, reaffirming that the certification authority could not be used to send the whole case to the Supreme Court for decision.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan, after

Mr. Justice Harlan, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 454, we had occasion to consider the scope and meaning of the sixth section of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, authorizing a Circuit Court of Appeals, in every case within its jurisdiction, to certify questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires instruction for the proper decision of the. case. The court there reaffirmed the rule, announced in previous cases, that the authority to certify such questions could not be used for the purpose of sending to this court the whole case, with all its circumstances, for consideration and decision. Jewell v. McKnight, 123 U. S. 426; Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699; United States v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132; United States v. Union Pacific Railway, 168 U. S.

505. Upon a review of the adjudged cases we used this language in reference to the certificate of questions in that case: “The present certificate brings to us a question of mixed law and fact and, substantially, all the circumstances connected with the issue to be determined. It does not present a distinct point of law, clearly stated, which can be decided without passing upon the weight or effect of all the evidence out of-which the question arises. The question certified is rather a condeñsed, argumentative narrative of the facts upon which, in the opinion of the judges of the ’Circuit Court of Appeals, depends the validity of the live-stock contract in suit.

Thus, . practically, the whole case is brought here by the certified question, and we are, in effect, asked to indicate what, under all the facts stated, should be the final judgment. It is, obviously, as if the court had been asked, generally, upon a statement of all the facts, to determine what, upon those facts, is the law of the case.” 205 U. S. 444, 454.

The certificate in the present case is objectionable upon the ground that it does not set forth propositions of law, clearly stated, which may' be answered without reference to all the facts, but mixed questions of law and fact which require us to construe various acts of Congress, and, in the light of all the testimony in the case, determine whether the accused could be held guilty of any offense legally punishable by the United States. It is as if the court were asked what, upon the whole case as sent up, should have been the verdict and judgment in the trial court. The certificate is defective and must be dismissed, because not in conformity to the statute.

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
    …2-435; United States v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50, 52; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63; United States v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 512; Chicago, B. & Q. Rwy. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452, 453; 214 U. S. 492; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107; The Folmina, 212 U. S. 354, 363; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 215 U. S. 216, 221, 223. But, on the other hand, there is no objection to the submission of a definite and clean-cut question of law merely because the answer may be…
  • Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U.S. 638 (U.S. 1936)
    …or questions which admit of one answer under one set of circumstances and a different answer under another, neither of which is stated to be the basis of the. questions certified. See White v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 367, 371; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 435; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680. Moreover, it does not appear that the claims not previously adjudicated constitute'“a material and substantial part of the thing patented, and definitely distinguish^ abl…
  • Lowden v. Nw. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 298 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1936)
    …r, the differentiating circumstances being imperfectly disclosed. White v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 367, 371; United States v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55, 66; United States v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50, 52; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54, 55; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107; General Motors Corp. v. United States, 286 U. S. 49, 63. The questions now be [*163] fore us have been framed without adequate regard to these established rules of practice. Question No. 1 is too general and abstract, its relation to the cont…

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