Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution

Supreme Court

Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution

128 U.S. 510, 9 S. Ct. 148, 32 L. Ed. 533, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2245

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 10, 1888

DocketNo. 943

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 128 U.S. 510 (Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution, 128 U.S. 510, 9 S. Ct. 148, 32 L. Ed. 533, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2245 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Geay,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

By the rules often laid down in former cases, and restated at the last term in Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, and at the present term in Fire Lnsurance Association v. Wickham, ante, 426, this court cannot take jurisdiction of this case, because, besides the manifest attempt to refer ,to this court for decision substantially the whole case by the device of splitting it up into several questions, neither of. the questions certified presents a distinct point or proposition of law, clearly and precisely stated; but each requires this court to find out for itself the point intended to be presented, by searching through the allegations of the answer and the provisions of the statute relied on by the plaintiff, and by also examining [514]*514either the whole constitution of the State, or else reports or records of decisions óf its courts, referred to in the answer and made part thereof.

The certificate is even more irregular and insufficient than one undertaking to present the question, arising on demurrer or otherwise, whether an indictment, or a count therein, sets forth any offence, which this court has constantly held not to be a proper subject of a certificate of division of opinion. United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208 ; United States v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327.

Writ of error 'dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

Me. Justice Geay,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

By the rules often laid down in former cases, and restated at the last term in Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, and at the present term in Fire Lnsurance Association v. Wickham, ante, 426, this court cannot take jurisdiction of this case, because, besides the manifest attempt to refer ,to this court for decision substantially the whole case by the device of splitting it up into several questions, neither of. the questions certified presents a distinct point or proposition of law, clearly and precisely stated; but each requires this court to find out for itself the point intended to be presented, by searching through the allegations of the answer and the provisions of the statute relied on by the plaintiff, and by also examining [514]*514either the whole constitution of the State, or else reports or records of decisions óf its courts, referred to in the answer and made part thereof.

The certificate is even more irregular and insufficient than one undertaking to present the question, arising on demurrer or otherwise, whether an indictment, or a count therein, sets forth any offence, which this court has constantly held not to be a proper subject of a certificate of division of opinion. United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208 ; United States v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327.

Writ of error 'dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 U.S. 510, 9 S. Ct. 148, 32 L. Ed. 533, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dublin-township-v-milford-savings-institution-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack