HEITLER
v.
UNITED STATES; PERLMAN V. UNITED STATES; GREENBERG V. UNITED STATES; MCCANN V. UNITED STATES; QUINN V. UNITED STATES
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.
In these consolidated cases arising from convictions under the National Prohibition Act, the Supreme Court initially dismissed the writs of error as lacking jurisdiction because the constitutional validity of the Prohibition Act had already been established in prior decisions, making any challenge to it frivolous. However, after Congress passed a remedial statute in 1922 allowing cases mistakenly brought to the Supreme Court to be transferred to the appropriate lower court rather than dismissed, the Court transferred these cases to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit so that the numerous non-constitutional errors assigned could be properly reviewed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court.
These were writs of error issued directly to the District Court under § 238 of the Judicial Code to review sentences of fine and imprisonment on the ground that they were cases in which the constitutionality of the National Prohibition Act, under which the convictions were had, was drawn in question. In addition to the constitutionality of the Prohibition. Act, the assignments of error raised many questions as to the admissions of evidence and the charge of the court. We held that in view of oür previous decision affirming the validity of the National. Prohibition Act (National Prohibition Cases, 253 U. S. 350), the plaintiffs in error were precluded from raising the question again and basing, thereon a claim of jurisdiction for a writ of error under § 238, that the question made was, therefore, not substantial but frivolous, and-that the writ should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the authority of Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, and cases cited. Heitler v. United States, post, 703. This conclusion made it impossible for us to consider the other errors assigned.
The plaintiffs in error now invite our attention to an Act of Congress approved September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837, adding § 238 (a) to the Judicial Code, which provides that “ ... if an appeal or writ or error has been or shall be taken to, or issued out of, .the Supreme Court in a case wherein such appeal of writ of error should have been taken to, or issued out of, a circuit court of appeals, such appeal or writ of error shall not for such reason be dismissed, but shall.be transferred to the proper court, which shall thereupon' be possessed of the same and shall proceed to the determination thereof, with the same, force and effect as if such appeal or writ of error had been duly taken to, 6r issued out of, the court to which it is so transferred.'”
This is a remedial statute and should be construed liberally to carry out the evident purpose of Congress. The fact that the opportunity therein given to litigants in the’ Circuit Courts of Appeáls where they have mistakenly sought a review in; this Court may at times be abused and Unduly prolong-the litigation and delay the successful party below; is no reason why when the case comes clearly within the language of the statute the transfer' should not be made. The successful party below may avoid undue delay by a prompt motion to dismiss in this Court in such cases. "
The cases before us are clearly within the remedy of the statute. Based on the assumption of the presence of a real constitutional question in the case, plaintiffs in error sought review here not only of that question but of the numerous other errors assigned in the record. Williamson v. United States, 207 U. S. 425, 432, 434; Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474, 476. We find that there is no constitutional question of sufficient substance to give us jurisdiction to consider these other errors. „ In other words, we find that to have such alleged errors considered and reviewed, the writ of error herein should have issued out of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the proper circuit. Accordingly we hold that these several cases should be transferred to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit at the costs of the respective plaintiffs in error, .that that court be'thereupon possessed of the jurisdiction of the same and proceed to the determination of said writs of error as if such writs had issued out of such court.
And it is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pothier v. Rodman, 261 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1923)…al has been taken to this Court 4hat should have been taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, not to dismiss the appeal but to transfer it to the proper Circuit Court of Appeals, which in this case is that of the First Circuit. Heitler United States, 260 U. S. 438. If the motion disclosed that the present appeal had been framed under § 238 to present solely the question of the jurisdiction of the District Court of Rhode Island certified here by that court, it would require üs to consider whether on such a li…
-
Gerardino v. People of Porto RICO, 29 F.2d 517 (1st Cir. 1928)…e government moves to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that this federal question is not substantial, but merely frivolous, within the rule laid down in such cases as Heitler v. United States, 260 U. [*518] S. 438, 439, 43 S. Ct. 185, 67 L. Ed. 338; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 S. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550. While not entirely free from doubt, we -think on the whole that this motion must be ■denied. We are not disposed to give a narrow and technical construction to the Bill o…
-
Barcelo v. Saldana, 54 F.2d 852 (1st Cir. 1931)…give jurisdiction to an appellate federal court must be substantial and necessarily involved in the opinion of the court below. New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, 344-346, 22 S. Ct. 691, 46 L. Ed. 936; Heitler v. United States, 260 U. S. 438, 439, 43 S. Ct. 185, 67 L. Ed. 338; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 187 U. S. 398, 311, 23 S. Ct. 123, 47 L. Ed. 190. However, we are inclined to the view that the court below in its opinion ruled on the question of whether section 42 co…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1908)
- Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1919)
- Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1918)
- Nat'l Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1920)