JONATHAN W. NESMITH AND THOMAS NESMITH, COMPLAINANTS,
v.
THOMAS C. SHELDON, HORACE H. COMSTOCK, DAVID FRENCH, WILLIAM E. PETERS, JAMES FORTON, ATLA E. MATHER, HENRY B. HOLBROOK, SAMUEL P. MEAD, FRANCIS E. ELDRED, PHŒBE ANN DEAN, CULLEN BROWN, AND CHARLES H. STEWART, DEFENDANTS

U.S. | 1848-01-01
6 How. 41 Supreme Court of the United States (1848) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 12 L. Ed. 335 · 1848 U.S. LEXIS 295 · SCDB 1848-006
Cited by 18 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 dismissed a case brought before it on a certificate of division from the Circuit Court for the District of Michigan, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the certificate contained hypothetical points that might never have arisen in the lower court rather than actual points of disagreement between judges. The Court reaffirmed its established precedent that certificates of division must present concrete disputed issues that actually divided the circuit court judges, not speculative or conditional questions.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the, opinion of the court.

This case comes before the court upon a certificate of divis-r ion from the Circuit Court for the District of Michigan. Upon opening the record, it is evident that the whole case has been sent up in this form. It is, indeed, divided into points, but most of them are merely hypothetical, and might never have arisen or required a decision upon them in the Circuit Court. ' For whether they would or would not arise depended altogether upon the decision of points which precede them in the statement.

.This subject has been frequently before the court, 'and we have repeatedly said, that, under such certificates of division, we have no jurisdiction. Without attempting to enumerate the cases, it is sufficient on the present occasion to refer to White v. Turk and others, 12 Peters, 238, and The United States v. Stone, 14 Peters, 524, which are decisive of this case. It is unnecessary, therefore, to examine the printed arguments that have been filed, as the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Michigan, and on the points and questions on which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, and Which were certified to this court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel. And it appearing to this court, upon an inspection of the said transcript, that no point in the case within the meaning of the act of Congress has been certified to this court, it is thereupon now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that this cause be. and the same is hereby dismissed, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court, to be proceeded in according to law.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1885)
    …ed States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208). 2. The points stated must be single, and must not bring up the whole case for decision (referring to United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 257; Adams v. Jones, 12 Pet. 207; White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 238; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54). And, inasmuch as the certificate in that case (Dennistoun v. Stewart) did not present a single or specific question of law arising in the progress of the cause, but referred to this court the entire law of the case a…
  • Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1887)
    …46; United States v. Northway, 120 U.S. 327; State Bank v. St. Louis Co., 122 U.S. 21. Nor can a splitting up of the whole case into the form of several questions enable the court to take jurisdiction. White v. Turk, above cited; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 47; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54. In Webster v. Cooper, decided at December term, 1850, it appearing by the record that the whole case had been divided into points and sent up to this court, and that several of the lat…
  • Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Co. of Des Moines v. United States, 281 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1930)
    …ere 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 applying the provision of 1802 and other la…

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

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw