Chamberlin v. Q. & C. Co.
This text of 260 F. 933 (Chamberlin v. Q. & C. Co.) 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.
Opinion
Appellant’s bill involved a controversy over which .,the District Court would have no jurisdiction unless there was the requisite diversity of citizenship. Appellees Quincy and Q. & C. Company moved to dismiss the bill, “upon the ground that it involves a controversy between citizens of the same state.” The motion was sustained, and the decree which is brought here for review “dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction.”
Whether the facts set forth in the bill presented a case which under the Constitution and statutes of the United States was cognizable in a federal court is a question that has been elaborately discussed by counsel ; but we are precluded from answering, because exclusive appellate jurisdiction of that question is in the Supreme Court. Raton Water Works v. Raton, 249 U. S. 552, 39 Sup. Ct. 384, 63 L. Ed. 768 (May 5, 1919); Blumenstock v. Curtis Publishing Co., 258 Fed. 927,-C. C. A.-(decided at the present session of this court).
On our own motion, the appeal is dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
260 F. 933, 171 C.C.A. 575, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlin-v-q-c-co-ca7-1919.