Kirwan v. Murphy

Supreme Court

Kirwan v. Murphy

170 U.S. 205, 18 S. Ct. 592, 42 L. Ed. 1009, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1538

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 25, 1898

Docket550

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 170 U.S. 205 (Kirwan v. Murphy) 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

Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U.S. 205, 18 S. Ct. 592, 42 L. Ed. 1009, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1538 (1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the sixth section of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 20 Stat. 826, the judgments or decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are made final iii that court in the classes of cases, therein enumerated, of which the present is not one, and it is provided that in all cases not. made final, there shall be of -right, within one year an appeal or .writ of error or review of *209 the case .by this court, where the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars exclusive of costs.

But this applies only to final orders, judgments or decrees. Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; Keystone Iron Company v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; American Constructio n Company v. Jacksonville Railway Company, 148 U. S. 372, 378.

The order sought to be reviewed was simply an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court for the issue of a temporary injunction, which order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals without direction. If we should take jurisdiction, it is this order we should revise in also reviewing that of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and our mandate would go directly to the Circuit. Court. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Behlmer, 169 U. S. 644.

In Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, it was- held that the Circuit Courts of Appeals on an appeal from- an interlocutory order or decree of the Circuit Courts granting án injunction and ordering an accounting in a patent suit, might-consider and decide the case on its merits, an'd thereupon render or direct a final- decree dismissing the bill; and this course might be pursued in other cases. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651. Here, however, the Court of Appeals did not finally determine the case by its judgment, and whether the temporary injunction should be made permanent or not, was left to the Circuit Court to decide when the final decree was entered.

And we may add, that in concluding its opinion, the Circuit Court of Appeals said: “In view of these considerations, we, are not satisfied that an error was committed -in awarding a •temporary injunction. It cannot be said, we think, that the injunction was improvidently issued, and the order appealed, from is therefore affirmed.” 49 U. S. App. 658.

Moreover, by section six, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are empowered to review final decisions of the District and. Circuit Courts, except where cases are carried, under section five, directly to this court, but, by the seventh section, as amended by the act of February 19, 1895, 2;j Stat. 666, c. 96, jurisdic *210 tion is given to .the Courts of Appeals from appeals from interlocutory orders in injunction proceedings. . And, it was tinder that section that the appeal was. taken to -the Court of Appeals in this case.

But there is no provision in the act of March 3, 1891, or any other'act, authorizing an appeal to this court from inter-, locutory orders or decrees, and whether certiorari would lie is a question that does not arise. In re Tampa Suburban Railroad Co mpany, 168 U. S. 583.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the sixth section of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 20 Stat. 826, the judgments or decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are made final iii that court in the classes of cases, therein enumerated, of which the present is not one, and it is provided that in all cases not. made final, there shall be of -right, within one year an appeal or .writ of error or review of *209 the case .by this court, where the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars exclusive of costs.

But this applies only to final orders, judgments or decrees. Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; Keystone Iron Company v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; American Constructio n Company v. Jacksonville Railway Company, 148 U. S. 372, 378.

The order sought to be reviewed was simply an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court for the issue of a temporary injunction, which order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals without direction. If we should take jurisdiction, it is this order we should revise in also reviewing that of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and our mandate would go directly to the Circuit. Court. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Behlmer, 169 U. S. 644.

In Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518, it was- held that the Circuit Courts of Appeals on an appeal from- an interlocutory order or decree of the Circuit Courts granting án injunction and ordering an accounting in a patent suit, might-consider and decide the case on its merits, an'd thereupon render or direct a final- decree dismissing the bill; and this course might be pursued in other cases. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651. Here, however, the Court of Appeals did not finally determine the case by its judgment, and whether the temporary injunction should be made permanent or not, was left to the Circuit Court to decide when the final decree was entered.

And we may add, that in concluding its opinion, the Circuit Court of Appeals said: “In view of these considerations, we, are not satisfied that an error was committed -in awarding a •temporary injunction. It cannot be said, we think, that the injunction was improvidently issued, and the order appealed, from is therefore affirmed.” 49 U. S. App. 658.

Moreover, by section six, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are empowered to review final decisions of the District and. Circuit Courts, except where cases are carried, under section five, directly to this court, but, by the seventh section, as amended by the act of February 19, 1895, 2;j Stat. 666, c. 96, jurisdic *210 tion is given to .the Courts of Appeals from appeals from interlocutory orders in injunction proceedings. . And, it was tinder that section that the appeal was. taken to -the Court of Appeals in this case.

But there is no provision in the act of March 3, 1891, or any other'act, authorizing an appeal to this court from inter-, locutory orders or decrees, and whether certiorari would lie is a question that does not arise. In re Tampa Suburban Railroad Co mpany, 168 U. S. 583.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 U.S. 205, 18 S. Ct. 592, 42 L. Ed. 1009, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirwan-v-murphy-scotus-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack