Bowles v. Culhane

Seventh Circuit

Bowles v. Culhane

151 F.2d 504, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2975

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 1945

DocketNo. 8835

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 F.2d 504 (Bowles v. Culhane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles v. Culhane, 151 F.2d 504, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2975 (7th Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Defendant was sued by the Office of Price Administration for treble damages for alleged violation of the Maximum Price Regulation No. 193, in the sale of whiskey. Defendant filed an affidavit of prejudice which the Court held to be insufficient. The Government’s motion to quash the defendant’s affidavit of prejudice was granted. This appeal followed the entry of the order refusing to grant a change of venue.

While two questions are presented: (a) The sufficiency of the affidavit alleging prejudice, and (b) the appealability of the order overruling the motion for change of venue based on the alleged prejudice, we will consider only the second dispute. In other words, if the order is not appealable, we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. If so, we can not pass upon the merits of the defendant’s motion.

Unquestionably, Circuit Courts of Appeals have limited jurisdiction on appeal. With exceptions not here material, Circuit Courts of Appeals may review final decisions only. 28 U.S.C.A. § 225.

Is an order denying a motion for a change of venue a “final decision” ?

[505]*505Serious as it may be to the defendant to be compelled to proceed, perhaps in vain, to a costly trial should his contention that the affidavit of prejudice divests the District Court of jurisdiction be later upheld, it is not, we think, within our limited statutory jurisdiction to pass on the question at any preliminary stage of the proceeding. Defendant must reach a final decision in the trial before he can secure a review of the alleged error which occurred in refusing him a change of venue. Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 33 S.Ct. 1007, 57 L.Ed. 1379; Skirvin v. Mesta, 10 Cir. 141 F.2d 668; Baltuff v. United States, 9 Cir., 35 F.2d 507; McColgan v. Lineker, 9 Cir., 289 F. 253.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction on our part to entertain it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Defendant was sued by the Office of Price Administration for treble damages for alleged violation of the Maximum Price Regulation No. 193, in the sale of whiskey. Defendant filed an affidavit of prejudice which the Court held to be insufficient. The Government’s motion to quash the defendant’s affidavit of prejudice was granted. This appeal followed the entry of the order refusing to grant a change of venue.

While two questions are presented: (a) The sufficiency of the affidavit alleging prejudice, and (b) the appealability of the order overruling the motion for change of venue based on the alleged prejudice, we will consider only the second dispute. In other words, if the order is not appealable, we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. If so, we can not pass upon the merits of the defendant’s motion.

Unquestionably, Circuit Courts of Appeals have limited jurisdiction on appeal. With exceptions not here material, Circuit Courts of Appeals may review final decisions only. 28 U.S.C.A. § 225.

Is an order denying a motion for a change of venue a “final decision” ?

[505]*505Serious as it may be to the defendant to be compelled to proceed, perhaps in vain, to a costly trial should his contention that the affidavit of prejudice divests the District Court of jurisdiction be later upheld, it is not, we think, within our limited statutory jurisdiction to pass on the question at any preliminary stage of the proceeding. Defendant must reach a final decision in the trial before he can secure a review of the alleged error which occurred in refusing him a change of venue. Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 33 S.Ct. 1007, 57 L.Ed. 1379; Skirvin v. Mesta, 10 Cir. 141 F.2d 668; Baltuff v. United States, 9 Cir., 35 F.2d 507; McColgan v. Lineker, 9 Cir., 289 F. 253.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction on our part to entertain it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 F.2d 504, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-culhane-ca7-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack