Roth v. Mercantile Bank

D.C. Circuit

Roth v. Mercantile Bank

41 App. D.C. 293, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2175

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided January 5, 1914·No. No. 2569·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Van Orsueu

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A jurisdictional question avoids consideration of the appeal on its merits. In the Federal courts, appeal or writ of error can be taken only from a final judgment disposing of the case. It follows, therefore, that an appeal will not lie from the order dismissing the banks, while the action is still standing as to the other defendants. United States v. Girault, 11 How. 22, 13 L. ed. 587; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. 148 U. S. 262, 37 L. ed. 443, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Menge v. Warriner, 57 C. C. A. 432, 120 Fed. 817.

For lack of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Van Orsueu

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A jurisdictional question avoids consideration of the appeal on its merits. In the Federal courts, appeal or writ of error can be taken only from a final judgment disposing of the case. It follows, therefore, that an appeal will not lie from the order dismissing the banks, while the action is still standing as to the other defendants. United States v. Girault, 11 How. 22, 13 L. ed. 587; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. 148 U. S. 262, 37 L. ed. 443, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Menge v. Warriner, 57 C. C. A. 432, 120 Fed. 817.

For lack of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Roth v. Mercantile Bank, 41 App. D.C. 293, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2175 (D.C. Cir. 1914).

Pincite

41 App. D.C. 293 (Roth v. Mercantile Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related