RATON WATER WORKS COMPANY
v.
CITY OF RATON

U.S. | 1919-05-05
No. 348
249 U.S. 552 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 768 · 39 S. Ct. 384 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2036 · SCDB 1918-104
Cited by 13 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 held that a Circuit Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court judgment in a suit between two New Mexico corporations where the district court's jurisdiction rested solely on a federal question arising under the Constitution, as such cases fell within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Judicial Code.

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

Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice.

Memorandum opinion by

The Chief Justice.

The certificate states that in a cause pending before it on appeal from the district court, the jurisdiction of the court ielow to entertain the cause on appeal was questioned on the ground that the judgment of the district court was exclusively susceptible of being reviewed by direct appeal to this court. The certificate further states that «the parties to the> cause in the district court were both corporations of New Mexico and the jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the suit was based solely upon the ground that it was one arising under the Constitution of the United States.

Resulting from these conditions the quéstion which the certificate propounds is this: “Has this court [the Circuit Court of Appeals] jurisdiction of the appeal?” The solution of the question is free from difficulty, since whatever at one time may have been the basis for hesitancy concerning the question the necessity for a negative answer is now conclusively manifest as the result of a line of decisions determining that, under the circumstances as stated, the Circuit Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction of the appeal, as the exclusive power to review was vested in this court. Judicial Code, §§ 128, 238; American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277-281; Huguley Manufacturing Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 184 U. S. 290, 295; Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 202 U. S. 453, 458; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318.

A negative answer to the question propounded is therefore directed.

And it is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1923)
  • Wagner Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1923)
    …leton Cotton Mills, 184 U. S. 290, 295; Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 202 U. S. 453, 458; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318; Raton Water Works Co. v. City of Raton, 249 U. S. 552, 553. Such a case could not be taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals and, except for legislation enacted by Congress September 14, 1922, it would have been the duty of that court to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.. Except for that legislation,…
  • Louie v. United States, 254 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1921)
    …d was whether the District Court had jurisdiction, its decision could be reviewed only by direct writ of error from this court to the District Court. See United States v. John, 155 U. S. 109, 114, 115; compare Raton Water Works Co. v. City of Raton, 249 U. S. 552. The dissenting judge was of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the writ of error, because an additional error relating to the merits had been assigned there, although not raised below. [*550] A writ of certiorari was gran…

Previewing 3 of 6 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