Nimick v. Coleman

Supreme Court

Nimick v. Coleman

95 U.S. 266, 24 L. Ed. 447, 5 Otto 266, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 2164

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 26, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 U.S. 266 (Nimick v. Coleman) 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

Nimick v. Coleman, 95 U.S. 266, 24 L. Ed. 447, 5 Otto 266, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 2164 (1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief, Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think the motion to dismiss in this case must be granted. The record shows affirmatively that the Circuit Court refused to take jurisdiction upóu the appeal, and did proceed under its supervisory jurisdiction alone. The case is thus brought directly within our decision in Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 150; and, as the order of the District Court has-been affirmed, we are not called upon to determine whether we should set aside the action of the Circuit Court for Avant of jurisdiction, as Ave did in that c.ase, because there Avas a reversal. If, as is claimed, the District Court acted without- jurisdiction, or in a manner not to bind the parties, its decree as made Avas void; and the aggrieved partnership creditors may very properly consider whether they cannot proceed' in equity to call the trustees to a proper accounting and distribution. Upon that question, hoAvever, Ave express no opinion. We are clear that no’appeal lies to this court from the action of the Circuit Court in respect to what has been done : and the' suit is accordingly . • Dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief, Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think the motion to dismiss in this case must be granted. The record shows affirmatively that the Circuit Court refused to take jurisdiction upóu the appeal, and did proceed under its supervisory jurisdiction alone. The case is thus brought directly within our decision in Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 150; and, as the order of the District Court has-been affirmed, we are not called upon to determine whether we should set aside the action of the Circuit Court for Avant of jurisdiction, as Ave did in that c.ase, because there Avas a reversal. If, as is claimed, the District Court acted without- jurisdiction, or in a manner not to bind the parties, its decree as made Avas void; and the aggrieved partnership creditors may very properly consider whether they cannot proceed' in equity to call the trustees to a proper accounting and distribution. Upon that question, hoAvever, Ave express no opinion. We are clear that no’appeal lies to this court from the action of the Circuit Court in respect to what has been done : and the' suit is accordingly . • Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 U.S. 266, 24 L. Ed. 447, 5 Otto 266, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 2164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nimick-v-coleman-scotus-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack