State Bank v. St. Louis Rail Fastening Co.

Supreme Court

State Bank v. St. Louis Rail Fastening Co.

122 U.S. 21, 7 S. Ct. 1054, 30 L. Ed. 1121, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2084

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 23, 1887

Docket263

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 U.S. 21 (State Bank v. St. Louis Rail Fastening Co.) 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

State Bank v. St. Louis Rail Fastening Co., 122 U.S. 21, 7 S. Ct. 1054, 30 L. Ed. 1121, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2084 (1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr.. Justice Gray,

after'stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The matter in dispute being less than $5000, the jurisdiction of this court depends upon' the certificate of division of opinion,' in which the only question certified is whether, upon all thé facts found by the court, the plaintiff has the legal right ,to recover upon the checks in controversy.

But the office of a certificate of a division of opinion between two judges in the Circuit Court is to submit.to this court one or more points of law, and not the whole case, nor the general question whether upon all the facts, as agreed by the parties in a case stated, or specially found by the court when a trial by jury has been waived, the judgment should be for the one party or the other.

In Harris v. Elliott, 10 Pet. 25, one of the questions certified was, “upon the facts stated, whether, the plaintiffs have any right or title to the lands taken for streets, in which the trespass is supposed to have been committed, and can maim tain their said action.” This court held that it could express no opinion upon that question, because, as said by Mr. Justice^ Thompson in delivering judgment, it “is too general, embracing the merits of the whole case, and does not present any single point or question; and it has been repeatedly ruled in this court, that the whole case cannot be brought here, under the act of 1802, upon such a general question.”

The subsequent decisions under the successive acts of Congress upon this subject are uniformly to the same effect. United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41; Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699; Williamsport Bank v. Knapp, 119 U. S. 357.

The necessary conclusion is, that the question certified cannot be answered, and that the

Writ of error must he dismissed.

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

Mr.. Justice Gray,

after'stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The matter in dispute being less than $5000, the jurisdiction of this court depends upon' the certificate of division of opinion,' in which the only question certified is whether, upon all thé facts found by the court, the plaintiff has the legal right ,to recover upon the checks in controversy.

But the office of a certificate of a division of opinion between two judges in the Circuit Court is to submit.to this court one or more points of law, and not the whole case, nor the general question whether upon all the facts, as agreed by the parties in a case stated, or specially found by the court when a trial by jury has been waived, the judgment should be for the one party or the other.

In Harris v. Elliott, 10 Pet. 25, one of the questions certified was, “upon the facts stated, whether, the plaintiffs have any right or title to the lands taken for streets, in which the trespass is supposed to have been committed, and can maim tain their said action.” This court held that it could express no opinion upon that question, because, as said by Mr. Justice^ Thompson in delivering judgment, it “is too general, embracing the merits of the whole case, and does not present any single point or question; and it has been repeatedly ruled in this court, that the whole case cannot be brought here, under the act of 1802, upon such a general question.”

The subsequent decisions under the successive acts of Congress upon this subject are uniformly to the same effect. United States v. Briggs, 5 How. 208; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41; Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699; Williamsport Bank v. Knapp, 119 U. S. 357.

The necessary conclusion is, that the question certified cannot be answered, and that the

Writ of error must he dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 U.S. 21, 7 S. Ct. 1054, 30 L. Ed. 1121, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-v-st-louis-rail-fastening-co-scotus-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack