Sivut kuvina

Names of Counsel.

desires the instruction of this court for their proper decision is irregular when a quorum of its members does not sit in the case, (United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414,) and that this certificate does not comply with rule thirty-seven of this court, inasmuch as it does not contain a proper statement of the facts on which the questions or propositions of law arise. While we have the power to require the whole record and cause to be sent up to us for consideration and decision, the sixth section of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, does not contemplate that questions or propositions of law shall be propounded and the entire record thereupon transmitted for us to answer such questions or propositions in view thereof. It is for us, when questions or propositions are certified, accompanied by a proper statement of the facts on which they arise, to determine whether we will answer them as propounded or direct the whole record to be placed before us in order to decide the matter in controversy in the same manner as if the case had been brought up by writ of error or appeal. We must decline, therefore, to answer the questions contained in this certificate, and order the case to be





No. 260. Submitted April 24, 1893. — Decided May 1, 1893.

On the authority of Cameron v. United States, 146 U. S. 533, this case is dismissed because it does not appear that the jurisdictional amount is involved.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. James Herrmann for appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for appellees.

Opinion of the Court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California in a proceeding under the act of Congress of February 25, 1885, entitled "An act to prevent unlawful occupancy of the public lands," 23 Stat. 321, c. 149, whereby appellant was directed to remove a fence and enclosure from certain sections of land therein described, in default of which it was decreed that the same should be destroyed by the marshal for said district. The value of the fence was claimed to exceed $5000; but the fence was not the matter in dispute, nor was the appellant deprived thereof. For want of the jurisdictional amount, Cameron v. United States, 146 U. S. 533, the appeal must be




[blocks in formation]

A bill of exceptions signed after the final adjournment of the court for the term, without an order extending the time for its presentation, or the consent of parties thereto, or a standing rule authorizing it to be done, is improvidently allowed; and when the errors assigned arise upon the bill, the judgment will be affirmed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Parker for plaintiffs in


Mr. T Alexander and Mr. N. C. Blanchard for defendants

in error

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Judgment was rendered in this case July 18, the writ of error sued out and allowed July 23, and the court adjourned for the term, July 30, 1889. So far as

Statement of the Case.

disclosed by the record the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge or signed by him until October 7, 1889, and no order was entered extending the time for its presentation, nor was there any consent of parties thereto, nor any standing rule of court which authorized such approval. The bill of exceptions was therefore improvidently allowed. Müller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249; Jones v. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co., 131 U. S. Appx. cl; Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293. As the errors assigned arise upon the bill of exceptions, we are compelled to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.

[blocks in formation]

This case is dismissed upon the authority of Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262.

THIS action was commenced in the court of common pleas of Logan County, Ohio, to foreclose a mortgage made by Nash to Harshman of real estate then owned by him, and conveyed by him to one Dupee after the execution of the mortgage. Nash and Dupee were both made defendants. After issue joined the cause was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States on the defendants' motion, on the ground of local prejudice. Trial was had there which resulted in a decree, December 4, 1890, against Nash for the payment of the debt, and against Dupee for the sale of the land on failure of Nash to make the payment within ten days from the decree. On the 11th of December, Nash took an appeal to this court, which was allowed, and a receiver was appointed to take possession of the estate and hold and manage it pending the appeal. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment, assigning the following reasons therefor:

Statement of the Case.

"1. No proper bond for appealing said cause to this court has been given; and none was required by said Circuit Court to be given, but in allowing this appeal, said court assumed to excuse and dispense with the bond required by law, whereby the allowance of appeal is rendered invalid and this court acquires no jurisdiction thereby.

"2. This appeal is not taken and prosecuted by the party against whom the decree of the court below was rendered.

"3. It is apparent upon an inspection of the record that said appeal is frivolous and utterly groundless, and was taken for the purposes of delay merely."

Mr. Louis D. Johnson for the motion.

No one opposing.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appeal is dismissed. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262.





No. 1275. Submitted April 24, 1893. - Decided May 1, 1893.

No appeal now lies to this court from decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

THIS was a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The motion was also entitled in the following cases: Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company; Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company; California Central Railway Company; California Southern Railroad Company; Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway Company; Missouri Pacific

Opinion of the Court.

Railway Company; St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company; Southern California Railroad Company. Accompanying the motion was the following "Statement: "

[ocr errors]

May 22, 1889, complaint was filed before the Interstate Commerce Commission against the appellees by the Board of Trade of San Bernardino, California, alleging said companies' maintenance of freight rates discriminative against San Bernardino, and in violation of the act of February 4, 1887, to regulate commerce (24 Stats. 379).

"Upon hearing, order was entered by the Commission on July 19, 1890, requiring the appellees to change and modify such rates. The appellees failed to obey such order, whereupon the Interstate Commerce Commission commenced this proceeding to enforce such obedience in the U. S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of California, on May 1, 1891, pursuant to section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act (amended act of March 3, 1889, 25 Stats. 859). That court decreed in favor of the appellees on April 25, 1892, on the sole ground that upon the proof presented the alleged unlawful discrimination in rates did not exist, (50 Fed. Rep. p. 295; Trans. p. 202,) and thereupon, on May 14, 1892, (Trans. p. 4163,) the Commission appealed to this court.

"Such decision was rendered and this appeal was taken after the creation of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The question is whether such direct appeal lies to this court."

Mr. George R. Peck, Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for the motion.

Mr. W. A. Day opposing.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The motion to dismiss is granted. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47; Hubbard v. Soby, 146 U. S. 56; Railway Company v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354.

Appeal dismissed.

« EdellinenJatka »