Page images

The Supreme Court of the United States has power to exercise jurisdiction in its nature appellate by means of the writs of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus, and habeas corpus, as hereinafter described. 12

In suits brought by the United States under the Interstate Commerce law, or the act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies, an appeal from the final decree will lie only to the Supreme Court.18

The word " construction” in the act includes interpretation.

U. S. v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 53 L. ed. 230. The writ of error brings up for review only the decision of the lower court concerning the subjects embraced within the clauses of the statute, and not the whole case U. S. v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 398, 53 L. ed. 230, 245. The construction of the indictment is not brought up for review. U. S. v. Herr et al, 211 U. S. 404, 53 L. ed. 251; U. S. v. Herr, 211 U. S. 406, 53 L. ed. 252; U. S. v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 397, 53 L. ed. 230, 244. If the court of first instance erred in the construction of the statute, its decision will be reversed without passing upon the contention that the indictment, when correctly construed, stated no offense, U. S. v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 398, 53 L. ed. 230, 244; U. S. v. Herr, 211 U. S. 406, 53 L. ed. 252; or that it was rightly quashed for other defects in the same. U. S. v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370, 397, 53 L. ed. 230, 244. An action to recover a statutory penalty, U. S. v. Baltimore & 0. S. W. R. Co., C. C. A., 159 Fed. 33; or to recover the penalty named in a recognizance, given by defendant in a criminal case, U. S. v. Zarafonitis, C. C. A., 150 Fed. 97, are, it has been held, criminal proceedings, and the United States may bring the same by writ

of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for review. A proceeding to punish a party for contempt is, in effect, a criminal case. O'Neal v. U. S., 190 U. S. 36, 47 L. ed. 945. Jud. Code, & 128, re-enacting 36 St. at L. 1087. When the trial court, besides holding the indictment defective for not following the language of the statute bases its decision also upon the ground that the statute does not apply to the facts alleged, the decision as to the latter ground is reviewable.

U. S. v. Davis, 243 U. S. 570.

12 Supra, &$ 456-460; infra, 8 689.

18 32 St, at L. 823. The Evarts Act, 26 St. at L. 828, $ 6, repealed U. S. R. S., $$ 651 and 697; U. S. v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132, 41 L, ed. 101; U. S. v. Hewecker, 164 U. S. 46, 41 L. ed. 345; U. S. R. S., $763; Webb v. York, 74 Fed. 753. See Ex parte Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 37 L. ed. 1120, 18 St. at L. 315, $3; The Havilah, C. C. A., 48 Fed. 684. It also repealed so much of § 16 of the Interstate Commerce Law as allowed appeal direct to the Supreme Court from certain orders of the Circuit Court under the act. Interstate Com. Com's Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 149 U. S. 264, 37 L. ed. 727. 30 Jud. Code § 241, 36 St. at L. 1087, reenacting 26 St. at L. 828, $ 6.



Appeals from orders granting or denying after notice and hearing interlocutory injunctions suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or setting aside in whole or in part, orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and orders of the United States Shipping Board,15 and appeals from interlocutory injunctions suspending or restraining the operation or execution of a State statute by restraining the action of a State officer in the enforcement or execution of such statute or in the enforcement or execution of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under and pursuant to the State statutes 16 are appealable directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In cases taken directly to the Supreme Court, where a constitutional question is raised, the Supreme Court reviews all the questions in the case, not merely the constitutional question.17

14 Act of October 22, 1913, ch. 32, 38 St. at L. 220, Comp. St. $ 998, supra, $ 100b.

15 Act of Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451, $ 31, 39 St. at L. 735, Comp. St. § 814600, supra, $ 100c.

16 Jud. Code, $ 266, 36 St. at L. 1087, as amended by Act of March 4, 1913, Comp. St. $ 1243, supra, $ 105d. The facts as well as the law will be reviewed upon such an appeal, City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Traction Co., 245 U. S. 446, 38 Sup. Ct. 153, 62 L. ed. 389. No such appeal lies from a second injunction order issued in aid of an injunction previously granted. Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U. S. 214, 38 Sup. Ct. 460, 62 L. ed. 1084,

17 Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651, 35 L. ed. 1146; Horner v. U. S., No. 2, 143 U. S. 570, 36 L. ed. 266; Carey v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 150 U. S. 170, 37 L. ed. 1041; Penn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Austin, 168 U. S. 685, 42 L. ed. 626; B. Altman & Co. v. U. S., 224 U. S. 583,

56 L, ed. 894. Northwestern Laundry v. City of Des Moines, 239 U. S. 486. There is then no occasion to consider the constitutional question if the case may be disposed of on other grounds. McCurdy v. U. S., 246 U. S. 263. A cross-appeal, or cross writ of error taken by the respondent to review questions not involving the construction or application of the Constitution will also be then determined. Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 194 U. S. 618, 48 L. ed. 1142; Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 230 U. S. 84. Where a Circuit Court of Appeals has acted without jurisdiction because the sole question at issue arose under the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court will reverse its decree without passing upon the merits. Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 74, 47 L. ed. 712, 714. See Mississippi R. R. Comm. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 225 U. S. 272, 56 L. ed. 1087.

The Supreme Court will not take jurisdiction upon this ground unless there is a substantial controversy which is not merely colorable concerning the construction or application of the Constitution, or the validity or construction of a treaty.18 No appeal or writ or error lies until final judgment or decree.19 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the judgments of the District Courts dismissing claims against the United States where the amount in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars or the claim is forfeited to the United States for fraud; but not otherwise; and also all judgments of such courts for the recovery of claims against the United States, 20 except customs cases.21 The Supreme Court can review directly the decree of the District Court entered upon its mandate.22

18 Re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 37 L. ed. 1120; Carey v. Houston & T. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 170, 37 L. ed. 1041; C. A. Treat Mfg. Co. v. Standard S. & I. Co., 157 U. S. 674, 39 L. ed. 823; Merritt v. Bowdoin College, 169 U. S. 551, 42 L. ed. 850; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 U. S. 430; Central Tr. Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 1; City of Indianapolis v. Central Tr. Co., 83 Fed. 529; . C., 27 C. C. A. 580; Cornell v. Green, 163 U. S. 75, 41 L. ed. 76; Consolidated Water Co. v. Babcock, 173 U. S. 702, 45 L. ed. 1257; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 45 L. ed. 527; Am. Sugar Refining Co. v. U. S., 211 U. S. 155, 53 L. ed. 129; Franklin v. U. S., 216 U. S. 559, 54 L. ed. 615; Brolan v. U. S., 236 U. S. 216; United Surety Co. v. Am. Fruit Product Co., 238 U. S. 140. When the constitutionality of the statute that is attacked has been sustained by a previous decision, the appeal will be dismissed, Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 56 L. ed. 173; but not when there has been a division of opinion in the court below, or there is a conflict of opinion in prior decisions as to the point involved, or an analysis of

former decisions is necessary in order to ascertain whether they have passed upon the point in question, Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 54 L. ed. 921; nor where the bill attacks the constitutionality of a State statute, upon the validity of which the Supreme Court has not previously passed, and the application of prior decisions upon statutes which, it is contended, are similar, goes to the merits, Ontario Land Co. v. Wilfong, 223 U. S. 543, 56 L. ed. 544. When a constitutional question has been settled by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court it cannot be subject of another appeal. Sloan v. U. S., 193 U. S. 614, 48 L, ed. 814; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 50 L, ed. 101; Harris v. Rosenberger, C. C. A., 145 Fed. 449; supra, $ 24. When a constitutional question existed in the case at the time the writ

error was sued out, the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to decide the other questions therein, although the objection founded upon the Constitution has been obviated. Wil liamson v. U. S., 207 U. S. 425, 434, 52 L. ed. 278, 285.

19 McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 35 L, ed. 893; infra, $ 695.

§ 688a. Review by the Supreme Court of the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Judicial Code further provides : that "the judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals shall be final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy, being aliens, and citizens of the United States, or citizens of different States; 1 also, in all cases arising under the patent laws, under the trade-mark laws, under the copyright laws, under the revenue laws, and under the criminal

20 Reid v. U. S., 211 U. S. 529, 53 L. ed. 313. See Arkansas v. Schlierholz, 179 U. S. 598, 45 L. ed. 335; Homer Fritch v. U. S., 248 U. S. 459; infra, $ 711.

21 See infra, 8 689a.

22 Arkadelphia Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 249 U. S. 134; McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657.

$ 688a. 1 The Supreme Court can review by writ of error or appeal the final decision of a Circuit Court of Appeals provided the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars besides costs, in a case where the plaintiff's pleading shows that jurisdiction exists both because of diverse citizenship and because the case arises under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, although the plaintiff himself invoked the jurisdiction because of the diversity of the citizenship alone, No. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Soderberg, 188 U. S. 526, 47 L. ed. 575; Benedict v. New York, 250 U. $. 321, 39 Sup. Ct. 476, 63 L. ed. 1005; but not where the complainant does not in his pleading invoke the protection of the Federal constitution; Omaha Electric Light and Power Co. v. City of Omaha, 230 U. S. 123. A recital that a judgment was rendered in

another State is not equivalent to the assertion of the constitutional right that full faith and credit be given thereto. Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 477, 53 L. ed. 605. Nor where the alleged infractions of the Constitution are without color or merit, or are anticipatory of the defense. Denver v. N. Y. Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123; G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. Co., 237 U. S. 618; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144. Nor where the case has been removed from a State court solely because of diverse citizenship, Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 237 U. S. 300; D. L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439; Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 245 U. S. 359, 38 Sup. Ct. 130, 62 L. ed. 345, where the plaintiff in its pleading had referred to an act of Congress. Nor where the constitutional question is not raised until the trial. Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 477, 53 L. ed. 605; Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 56 L. ed. 173. See City of Memphis v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 218 U. S. 624, 54 L. ed. 1185; Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Co. v. Boise City (2), 230 U. S. 98. Nor where the original ground of


jurisdiction and the only one that appeared by the plaintiff's pleading was a difference of citizenship, al. though subsequently another ground for jurisdiction appeared, Colorado C. C. Min. Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 37 L. ed. 1030; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408, 40 L. ed. 199; Third St. & Suburban Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457, 43 L. ed. 766; Am. Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 45 L. ed. 859. See also Benjamin v. New Orleans, 169 U. S. 161, 42 L, ed. 700; Re Jones, 164 U. S. 691, 41 L. ed. 601; Loeb v. Columbia Township, 179 U. S. 472, 45 L. ed. 280; Ayres v. Polsdorfer, 187 U. S. 585, 47 L. ed. 314. Nor in ancillary proceedings, Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643, 40 L. ed. 566; Carey v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 161 U. S. 115, 40 L. ed. 638, including a suit for the collection of assets, brought by a receiver appointed by a Federal court; Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 173 U. S. 573, 43 L. ed. 814. Nor in proceedings upon petitions of intervention, Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 588, 40 L. ed. 817; Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643, 40 L. ed. 566. Nor in suits brought by and against receivers of Federal courts when the sole ground of jurisdiction is that in the suits wherein they were appointed there was a diversity of citizenship, Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 573, 43 L. ed. 814; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 588, 40 L. ed. 817; Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 161 U. S. 115, 40 L. ed. 638. But the Supreme Court may review a decree upon a

petition by a receiver for relief against a violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States. Railroad Commission v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 56 L. ed. 1004. Nor in suits to which national banking associations are parties and there is no other Federal question in the case; Continental Nat. Bank v. Buford, 191 U. S. 119, 48 L. ed. 119.

2 See supra, § 29.

3 Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. Loewy, 217 U. 8. 457, 54 L. ed. 838; 33 St. at L. 724-731, ch. 592, S$ 1-30. This was not repealed by the Judicial Code. Street & Smith v. Atlas Mfg. Co., 231 U. S. 348; Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U. S. 403; see supra, $ 30.

4 Webster v. Daly, 163 U. S. 155; Street v. Atlas Mfg. Co., 231 U. S. 348, 351, 34 Sup. Ct. 73, 58 L. ed. 262. So, in suits for damages on account of the infringement of a common-law copyright, Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105, 41 L. ed. 367. The Supreme Court took jurisdiction of a writ of error to review the judgment in a suit to recover penalties exceeding one thousand dollars for breach of copy. right; Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 148, 44 L. ed. 1009. See supra, $ 29.

5 Suits to review the decisions of the board of general appraisers, arise under the revenue laws, AngloCalifornian Bank v. U. S., 175 U. S. 37, 44 L. ed. 64. The decision of a Circuit Court of Appeals is not final where the case arises under the internal revenue laws. Spreckles Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, 48 L. ed. 496, or tariff laws,

« PreviousContinue »