Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RATON WATER WORKS COMPANY v. CITY RATON

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


May 5, 1919

RATON WATER WORKS COMPANY
v.
CITY OF RATON

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke

Author: White

[ 249 U.S. Page 552]

 Memorandum opinion by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The certificate states that in a cause pending before it on appeal from the district court, the jurisdiction of

[ 249 U.S. Page 553]

     the court below to entertain the cause on appeal was questioned on the ground that the judgment of the district court was exclusively susceptible of being reviewed by direct appeal to this court. The certificate further states that the parties to the cause in the district court were both corporations of New Mexico and the jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the suit was based solely upon the ground that it was one arising under the Constitution of the United States.

Resulting from these conditions the question which the certificate propounds is this: "Has this court [the Circuit Court of Appeals] jurisdiction of the appeal?" The solution of the question is free from difficulty, since whatever at one time may have been the basis for hesitancy concerning the question the necessity for a negative answer is now conclusively manifest as the result of a line of decisions determining that, under the circumstances as stated, the Circuit Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction of the appeal, as the exclusive power to review was vested in this court. Judicial Code, ยงยง 128, 238; American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U.S. 277-281; Huguley Manufacturing Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 184 U.S. 290, 295; Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71, 73; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 202 U.S. 453, 458; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U.S. 305, 318.

A negative answer to the question propounded is therefore directed.

And it is so ordered.

19190505

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.