« AnteriorContinuar »
laws, and in admiralty ? cases.”' 8 By the Act of September 6, 1916, this finality was extended to “judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals in all proceedings and causes arising under 'An Act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,' approved July first, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight,9 and in all controversies arising in such proceedings and causes; also, in all causes arising under 'An Act relating to the liability of common carriers by railroad to their employees in certain cases,' approved April twentysecond, nineteen hundred and eight; 10 also, in all causes arising under 'An Act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours of service of employees thereon,' approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and seven ; 11 also, in all causes arising under 'An Act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads by compelling common carriers engaged in interstate commerce to equip their cars with automatic couplers and continuous brakes and their locomotives with driving-wheel brakes, and for other purposes, approved March second, eighteen hundred and ninety-three; and also, in all causes arising under any amendment or supplement to any one of the aforementioned Acts which has been heretofore or may hereafter be enacted, shall be final.” 13 “All cases not hereinbefore, in this section, made final 14 there shall be
B. Altman & Co. v. U. S., 224 U. S. 583, 56 L. ed. 894, and the plaintiff in his pleading questions the constitutionality of such a statute.
6 Proceedings upon a writ of scire facias to enforce a forfeited recognizance or bail bond to secure the appearance of the defendant to a criminal charge arise “under the criminal laws,” Hunt v. U. S., 166 U. S. 424, 41 L. ed. 1063.
7 Proceedings to limit the liability of ship-owners are admiralty cases. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Balfour, 179 U. S. 55, 45 L. ed. 82.
8 Jud. Code, $ 128, 36 St. at L. 1087; Ibid. § 241.
Yurkonis, 239 U. S. 652; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U, S. 570, 57 L. ed.
11 Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 56 L. ed. 173.
12 Act of Jan'y 28, 1915, ch. 22, $ 4, as amended Sept. 6, 1916, ch. 448, § 3, Comp. St. $ 1120a.
13 Jud. Code, $ 128, 36 St. at L. 1087, Ibid. § 241, Comp. St. $ 1120.
14 Such decisions are not final where one of the parties is a foreign State. Columbia v. Cauca Co., 190 U. S. 524, 47 L. ed. 1150. Nor in cases under the Pure Food & Drugs Act. Four Hundred and Forty-three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v.
9 Supra, $ 669.
226 U. S. 172, 57 L. ed.
of right an appeal or writ of error or review of the case by
Under the Mining Laws. upon the fact that the party is a Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. corporation chartered by Congress. Clark-Montana Realty Co., 249 U. No. Pac. R. Co. v. Amato, 144 U. S. S. 12; or land laws, Florida C. 465, 36 L. ed. 506 (in which the & P. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, author was counsel); Union Pac. R. 44 L. ed. 486; of the United States, Co. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326, 39 L. where the plaintiff's pleading claims ed. 1003; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. relief thereunder and shows that Gentry, 163 U. S. 353, 41 L. ed. 186; there is a controversy between him Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Hill, and the defendant as to their con- 237 U. S. 208; Texas & Pacific Railstruction. See supra, 8 31. Suits to way Co. v. Marcus, 237 U. S. 215. enforce a lien or title under a de- It has been said that where there cree or judgment of a Federal court; is jurisdiction, because the cause of Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Guardian action rests on a statute of the Trust Co., 240 U. S. 166, 178. Suits United States, and none of the conbrought against a marshal of the tentions directly invoke the interUnited States and a private person pretation of the statute, but merely on account of an alleged wrongful the question whether on the evidence execution of the process of a Fed- there was a right of recovery; the eral court; Sonnentheil v. Christian case belongs to that class in which Moerlein Br. Co., 172 U. S. 401, 43 it was the purpose of Congress to L. ed. 492. See supra, $ 39. A make the judgment of the Circuit suit brought against a receiver of Court of Appeals final, and the Sua national bank appointed by the preme Court will only examine the Comptroller, Auten v. U. S. Nat. record to see if plain error has Bank, 174 U. S. 125, 43 L. ed. 920, been committed, and if that is not or by a creditor of a national bank, apparent it will affirm the judgto enforce the statutory liability of ment. Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. the stockholders therein, Wyman v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 56 L. ed. 173. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, 50 L. ed. But see No. Pac. R. Co. v. Amato, 738. A suit brought by the United 144 U. S. 465, 36 L. ed. 506; Union States to cancel a patent for an in- Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326, vention; U. S. v. Am. Bel. Tel. Co., 39 L. ed. 1003; Texas & Pac. Ry. 159 U. S. 548, 40 L. ed. 255; or to Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 353, 41 L. dissolve an association formed to mo- ed. 186. Where the District Court nopolize interstate commerce; U. S. would not have had jurisdiction had v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass ’n, 166 the allegations of diverse citizenU. S. 290, 41 L. ed. 1007. A suit ship been stricken from the plainbrought by the Interstate Commerce tiff's pleading, its decision is final. Commission to enforce one of its Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher orders, Interstate Commerce Com'n Co., 212 U. S. 477, 53 L. ed. 605; v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 167 Weir v. Rountree, 216 U. S. 607, U. S. 633, 42 L. ed. 306. Formerly 54 L. ed. 635; Shine v. Fox Bros. the decisions of the Circuit Courts Mfg. Co., 216 U. S. 609, 54 L. ed. of Appeals were not final where the 636. Federal jurisdiction depended solely
the Supreme Court of the United States 15 where the matter in controversy shall exceed one thousand dollars besides costs.” 16 No such appeal lies from a decree of such a court that is not final in its nature, 17 nor from an order affirming or reversing an interlocutory order for an injunction.18 In all these cases the Supreme Court may review the decision by certiorari.19
$ 689. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. "In any case, civil or criminal, in which the judgment or decree of the circuit court of appeals is made final by the provisions of this title it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require, by certiorari or otherwise, upon the petition of any party thereto, any such case to be certified to the Supreme Court for its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court.” 1
A certiorari will issue from the Supreme Court under this section of the Judicial Code where questions of gravity or importance are involved ? or in the interest of uniformity of de
15 San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co. v. U. S., 247 U. S. 307. A stipulation that the daily interstate shipments from the competitive points in question exceeded $1,000, when coupled with an allegation in the answer that free competition would cause great loss and possible financial ruin to the railroad company, were sufficient proof that the matter in controversy exceeded $1,000; U. S. v. TransMissouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290, 41 L. ed. 1007. No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals upon an application for the writ of habeas corpus, since the matter in controversy cannot be measured in money. Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47, 36 L. ed. 340. See supra, SS 6-18, infra, $ 693.
16 Jud. Code & 128; San Pedro L.
A. & S. L. R. Co. v. U. S., 247 U. S. 307, 38 Sup. Ct. 498, 62 L. ed. 1129. See infra, $ 696.
17 U. 8. v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385, 43 L. ed. 1017; MacLeod v. Graven, C. C. A., 79 Fed. 84. Infra, $ 695.
18 Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 205, 42 L. ed. 1009; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Com ’rs, 247 U. S. 282, 38 Sup. Ct. 510, 62 L. ed. 1110.
19 See infra, $ 689.
$ 689. 1 Jud. Code $ 240, 36 St. at L. 1087.
2 It will usually issue where questions of international importance are involved; Re Lau Ow Bew, 141 U. S. 583, 587, 588, 35 L. ed. 868, 869, 870; U. S. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 41 L. ed. 897, and where there is a question as to the disqualification of a judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals to sit in the case.
American Constr. Co.
cision. The writ is issued with great liberality in cases of admiralty 4 and in cases brought under section 16 of the Act to regulate commerce, but rarely in patent cases where no fundamental principle is involved. The writ may issue in a case which the Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed for an alleged want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court may, but rarely will,8 order the certification of the record on an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari under § 241 of the Judicial Code, which has been previously quoted, to bring before it a case which it has appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error, but it may do so under $ 262, giving it power to issue original writs.10 The Supreme Court may issue a certiorari directing the whole case before the Circuit Court of Appeals to be certified to it for its decision, whether its advice is requested or not.11 It will then ordinarily decide the whole matter in controversy, as fully as if it had been brought up for review by writ of error or appeal.12 The writ brings up the whole case, including questions affecting the merits and those concerning the jurisdiction of the District Court, if they have been properly saved,13 and the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals upon a former appeal in the same
v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 37 L. ed. 486. For the issue of the writ to review a decree in a suit for the infringement of a patent and copyright and to restrain unfair competition, see Meccano v. Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136. For its issue in a suit to restrain the infringement of a trademark, see United Drug Co. v. Theodore Vectanus Co., 248 U. S. 90, 39 Sup. Ct. 48, 63 L. ed. 141.
3 Re Woods, 143 U. S. 202, 206, 36 L. ed. 125, 126, per Fuller, C. J. Cf. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354, 36 L. ed. 1002; where there is a difference of opinion between different Circuit Courts of Appeals; Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266, 37 L. ed. 445; Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U. S. 403. But see Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136; where there is an important conflict between the decisions of a Circuit Court of Appeals and a State Supreme Court in the same circuit; Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 41 L. ed. 1095; Anderson v. Moyer, 139 Fed. 499.
4 See The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 22 Sup. Ct. 102, 46 L. ed. 190, in which the author was counsel.
5 Southern Pac. Co. v. DarnellTaenzer Lumber Co., 245 U. S. 531, 535.
6 Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg.
Co., 170 U. S. 675, 42 L. ed. 1192; American S. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 45 L. ed. 859.
7 American Constr. Co. v, Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 386, 37 L. ed. 486, 492; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U. S. 244, 49 L. ed. 739; Flannelly v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 225 U. S. 597, 56 L. ed. 1221, an order granting a new trial. Upon such an appeal the court may dismiss the bill, Denver v. N. Y. Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123.
8 Denver v. N. Y. Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123. A refusal of the writ upon an interlocutory application is not equivalent to an affirmance. Ibid. Boise Commercial Club v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., C. C. A., 260 Fed. 769, 772, per Learned Hand, J. “We assume that ordinarily the denial of the writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court may not indicate the expression of an opinion in affirmance of the law of the case as applied by the Circuit Court of Appeals, but where there is a single question involved, and that question is entirely one of jurisdiction and there have been radically diverse decisions by the lower Federal courts, the denial of the writ would fairly imply that the court was satisfied that the jurisdictional point had been rightly decided.''
9 Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47, 36 L. ed. 340; U. S. v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463; Spiller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 253 U. S. 117.
10 Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Weld County, 247 U. S. 282. $ 460.
11 Lau Ow Bew Co. v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47, 36 L. ed. 340. When two parties petition for writs of certiorari to review the same judgment and the entire matter can be disposed of on one petition the other will be denied; Gompers v. U. S., 233 U. S. 604. The court may allow a certiorari in lieu of a cross appeal which is dismissed; Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium, 240 U. S. 581.
12 Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488.
13 Camp v. Gress, 250 U. S. 308. An error in interlocutory proceedings may then be reviewed although a previous writ of certiorari to review this has been denied. Hamilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U. S. 251. A constitutional question
may be considered although it was not raised in the court below. Itow & Fushimi v. U. S., 233 U. S. 581. The concurrent finding of the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals upon a question of fact will rarely be disturbed, Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Schmidt, 241 U. S. 245; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440. When the error of the Circuit Court of Appeals was upon a question of jurisdiction and the case was not there decided upon the merits, the case will ordinarily be remanded for a decision thereupon. Brown v. Fletcher, 237 U. S. 583. When the writ was erroneously or improvidently granted it may be dismissed without a decision upon any of the questions involved. Tyrrell, District of Columbia, 243 U, S. 1; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440.
14 Panama R. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280, 41 L. ed. 1004. But see Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, 41 L. ed. 810.