WILLIAM AND FRANCIS SADLER, COMPLAINANTS,
v.
THOMAS B. HOOVER, SYLVANUS CHAMBERS, AND SAMUEL H. DINKINS, PARTNERS BY THE STYLE OF THOMAS B. HOOVER AND COMPANY
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 dismissed a case brought before it on a certificate of division from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi because the record failed to distinctly state the particular point or points upon which the circuit court judges disagreed. The Court held that without a clear certification of the legal issue in dispute, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and remanded it to the circuit court for further proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered thé opinion of. the, court. This case comes before us on a certificate of division. But, upon inspecting the. record, it appears that the particular point or points upon which the justices of the Circuit Court differed in opinion are not distinctly stated; and the case must therefore bé 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 Southern District of Mississippi, and on the point and question on which the judges of the said Circuit. Court were opposed in opinion, and which was 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, jt is thereupon now here ordered and decreed 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
-
United States v. Waddell & Others, 112 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1884)…d does not. It leaves us to iArander over the Avhole field of conjecture for any possible objection to the information, without pointing to any distinct proposition of law on Avhich the judges divided. De Wolf v. Usher, 3 Pet. 269; Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646 ; Wilson v. Barnum, 8 How. 258; Daniels v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 250; Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430. If we look beyond the certificate of the judges to the demurrer itself, Ave find no ground of demurrer a…
-
Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1887)…n matter of law only, cannot be sent up by certificate of division. Saunders v. Gould, 4 Pet. 392; United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 267; Harris v. Elliott, 10 Pet. 25; White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 238; United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208; Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646; 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…
-
Chicago v. Williams, 205 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1907)…of'all the facts stated, of the contract under which the plaintiff’s cattle were transported. This court is without jurisdiction to answer the question certified in its present imperfect form and the certificate must be dismissed. Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Brewer dissented.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence