Roth v. Mercantile Bank

41 App. D.C. 293, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2175
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 5, 1914
DocketNo. 2569
StatusPublished

This text of 41 App. D.C. 293 (Roth v. Mercantile Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

United States v. Girault
52 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1851)
Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co.
148 U.S. 262 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Menge v. Warriner
120 F. 816 (Fifth Circuit, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 App. D.C. 293, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-mercantile-bank-cadc-1914.