Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co.

83 F. 1, 27 C.C.A. 389, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2059
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedOctober 1, 1897
DocketNo. 37
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 83 F. 1 (Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co., 83 F. 1, 27 C.C.A. 389, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2059 (3d Cir. 1897).

Opinion

SHIBAS, Circuit Justice.

This is a motion asking us to certify to

the supreme court the question whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause. Upon a former occasion we felt constrained to refrain from passing on the merits of the case while it was pending on an appeal to that court. 76 Fed. 401. Nor do we now perceive that any useful result would be promoted by granting the present motion. Until the supreme court shall have determined the questions there pending, on the appeal and on the motion to dismiss the appeal, this court thinks it would not be proper to deal with the case on its merits, and it may be that the action of the supreme court may relieve this court from any further duty in the case.

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

Related

Natural Grocers v. Perdue
N.D. California, 2022
DEBEVITS v. SAUL
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2021
Baumhoff v. St. Louis & Kirkwood Railroad
71 S.W. 156 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 F. 1, 27 C.C.A. 389, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullmans-palace-car-co-v-central-transp-co-ca3-1897.