THE UNITED STATES
v.
SAMUEL B. STONE
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.
The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over a case that had been irregularly transferred from a District Court to a Circuit Court and then certified to the Supreme Court by consent of counsel without proper judicial authorization. Chief Justice Taney reaffirmed that while Circuit Court judges may certify difficult constitutional questions to the Supreme Court upon an actual division of opinion, such certification must be sanctioned by a Supreme Court justice sitting in circuit, and permitting loose certification practices would improperly transform the Supreme Court into a court of original jurisdiction contrary to the Constitution.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court
The Court have examined the record in this case, and it is evident that in the form in which it comes before us, we have no jurisdiction.
The suit appears to have been brought in the District Court, and to have been carried origin that Court until a verdict was rendered. It was then by consent of counsel transferred to the Circuit Court, precisely in the state in which it then was; and a division of opinion then entered, pro forma, to send the casé to this Court.
All of this appears on the record; and is exceedingly irregular. The suit was brought originally in the District Court, and the verdict rendered there. The judgment or other proceeding on that verdict, ought to have been entered there also; and it was altogether irregular to transfer the proceedings, in that condition, to the Circuit Court.
We are aware that in some cases, where the point arising is óne of importance and difficulty, and it is desirable for the purposes of justice to obtain the opinion of this Court, the judges of the Circuit Court have sometimes, by consent, certified the point to this Court, as upon' a division of opinion; when in truth they both rather seriously doubted thati differed about it. We do not object to a practice of this description, when applied to proper cases, and on proper occasions. . But they musí be cases sanctioned by the judgment of one of the judges of this Court, in his circuit. A loose practice in this respect, might render this Court substantially a Court for the original decision of all causes of importance; when the Constitution and the' laws intended to make it altogether appellate in its character ; except in the few cases of original jurisdiction enumerated iri the Constitution.
The case, as sent here, involves a constitutional question, which is argued at some length in the printed brief; and this furnishfes a still stronger objection to the manner in which the point is brought before us. It would hardly be p/rpper for this Court to express opinions upon constitutional questions; when it appears, clearly, by the record that there is no suit legitimately before it.
The case is therefore remanded to the Circuit Court' for further proceedings, according to law.
The case of the United States vs. Charles A. Woolsey, having been sent here in like manner ; must also be remanded for the reasons abo^e stated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henry D. Darden & wife v. Lines, 2 Fla. 569 (Fla. 1849)
-
United States Ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1919)
-
Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Co. of Des Moines v. United States, 281 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1930)…rtain the certifications unless they were of distinct questions of law and not of the whole case, for otherwise it would be assuming original jurisdiction withheld from it by the Constitution. White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 238, 239; United States v. Stone, 14 Pet. 524, 525; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41, 43; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54, 55; The Alicia, 7 Wall. 571, 573; United States v. Perrin, 131 U. S. 55, 58; Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S. 216, 224. And, in applyin…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence