« PreviousContinue »
$ 689a. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Court of Customs Appeals. By the Judicial Code"in any case in which the judgment or decree of the Court of Customs Appeals is made final by the provisions of this title, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, upon the petition of either part, filed within sixty days next after the issue by the Court of Customs Appeals of its mandate upon decision, in any case in which there is drawn in question the construction of the Constitution of the United States, or any part thereof, or of any treaty made pursuant thereof, or in any other case when the Attorney General of the United States shall, before the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals is rendered, file with the court a certificate to the effect that the case is of such importance as to render expedient its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court; And provided further, That this Act shall not apply to any case involving only the construction of section one, or any portion thereof, of an Act entitled, 'An Act to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes,' approved August fifth, nineteen hundred and nine, nor to any case involving the construction of section two of an Act entitled 'An Act to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes,' approved July twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and eleven.”' 1
$ 689b. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The Judicial Code, after enumerating the cases in which the Supreme Court may review by appeal or writ of error final decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, provides : “In any case in which the judgment or decree of said Court of Appeals is made final by the section last preceding, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States to require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified to it for its review and determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by writ of
$ 689a. 136 St. at L. 91, 105, 38 St. at L. 703, Comp. St. $ 1186, see supra, $ 77.
error or appeal to said Supreme Court. It shall also be competent for said Court of Appeals, in any case in which its judgment or decree is made final under the section last preceding, at any time to certify to the Supreme Court of the United States any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the instruction of that court for their proper decision; and thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instruction on the questions and propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon said court of appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record and cause be sent up to it for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal.” 1
§ 689c. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the Supreme Courts of Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. By the Judicial Code in all civil or criminal cases wherein the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of Hawaii and of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico are not reviewable directly by appeal or writ of error “it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States to require by certiorari, upon the petition of any party thereto, that the case be certified to it, after final judgment or decree, for review and determination, with the same power and authority as if taken to that court by appeal or writ of error.
By the Act of September 6, 1916, “No judgment or decree rendered or passed by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands more than sixty days after the approval of this Act shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon writ of error or appeal; but it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, by certiorari or otherwise, to require that there be certified to it for review and determination, with the same power, and author
$ 689b. 1 Act of March 3, 1901, ch. 854, § 234, 31 St. at L. 1227; March 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 251, 36 St. at L. 1159. See infra, $ 691; a contempt proceeding may be thus re viewed; Gompers v. U. S., 253 U. S. 604. A judgment which is not final, such as a judgment of reversal which orders a new trial, may be thus re
viewed; George A. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 245 U. S. 489.
$ 689c. 1 Jud. Code § 246, amended, 35 St. at L. 838, 36 St. at L. 1158. Act of Jan’y 28, 1915, 38 St. at L. 804, Comp. St. § 1223. See infra, $ 691a and as to the practice see supra, $ 689.
ity and with like effect as if brought up by writ of error or appeal, any case wherein after such sixty days, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands may render or pass a judgment or decree which could be subject to review under existing
$ 689d. Review by the Supreme Court through certiorari of decisions of the State courts. By the Act of September 6, 1916, “It shall be competent, for the Supreme Court by certiorari or otherwise, to require that there be certified to it for review and determination with the same power and authority and with like effect as if brought up by writ of error, any cause wherein a final judgment or decree has been rendered or passed by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is against their validity,a or where any title, right, privilege,
2 Act of Sept. 6, 1916, ch. 448, § 5, 39 St. at L. 727, Comp. St. § 1225b. See infra, $ 691a, and as to practice see supra, $ 689. Gsell v. Insular Customs Collector, 239 U. S. 93; Tayabas Land Co. v. Manila R. R. Co., 250 U. S. 22. Upon an appeal from a decree of reversal the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the evidence and finally disposed of the case. Philippines Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of Philippine Islands, 247 U. S. 385, 38 Sup. Ct. 513, 62 L. ed. 1177. It will usually defer to the decision of the court below upon the construction of local laws. Ibanez v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 246 U. S. 621, 38 Sup. Ct. 410, 62 L. ed. 903. Cf. Territory of Arizona v. Copper Queen
Consol. Min. Co., 233 U. S. 87. But not when this is clearly erroneous. Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 247 U. S. 385, 38 Sup. Ct. 513, 62 L. ed. 1177.
$ 689d. 1“The words, ‘or otherwise' add nothing of substance to the thought expressed by the new act." Chicago Great Western R. R. Co. v. Basham, 249 U. S. 165, 39 Sup. Ct. 213, 63 L. ed. 534, per Pit
2 Much can be said against the validity of this clause of the statute, although it is not improbable that it may be sustained. Where the de. cision of the State court was in favor of the title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Federal authority, the Supreme Court
or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty 3 or statute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under
had before this act no jurisdiction to review it. Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 496, 34 L. ed. 1012.
3 See supra, $ 688.
4 Straus v. Am. Publishers' Ass ’n, 231 U. S. 222; Sage v. Hampe, 235 U. S. 99. Such is a case which involves the construction of an act of Congress under which a corporation is organized. Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias y. Mims, 241 U. S. 574; Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Smyth, 245 U. S. 594. A decision as to classification of merchandise imported into the Philippine Islands involves the construction of the Philippine Tariff Act. Gsell v. Insular Collector of Customs, 239 U. S. 93. Such is the right to a recovery, Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Padgett, Administratrix of Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Devine, 239 U. S. 52; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U. S. 276; or a defense, Nor. Car. R. R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U. S. 248; Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492; Toledo, St. L. & West. R. R. Co. v. Slavin, 236 U. S. 454; Chicago and Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Gray, 237 U. S. 399; Norfolk Southern Railroad Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U. S. 269; Kansas City Western Ry. Co. v. McAdow, 248 U. S. 51; Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Jones, 241 U. S. 181; Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn, 241 U. S. 290; which depends upon the construction of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 St. at L. 65, Comp. St. § 8657-8665; supra, $ 454j. But see Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Holloway, 246 U. S. 525, 38 Sup.
Ct. 379, 62 L. ed. 867 (holding that a ruling upon a question of local law should not be reviewed). Osborne v. Gray, 241 U. S. 16; infra, $ 711. Or upon the construction of the Safety Appliance Act, 27 St. at L. 531, Comp. St. § 8605-8609. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Popplar, 237 U. S. 369; or upon the construction of the Anti-trust Law, Union Pac. R. Co. v. Huxoll, 245 U. S. 535, 38 Sup. Ct. 187, 62 L. ed. 455; Wilder Mfg. Co.,V. Corn Products Co., 236 U. S. 165; or the Indian Laws, Wellsville Co. v. Miller, née Everett, 243 U. S. 6; Egan v. McDonald, 246 U. S. 220; Carney v. Chapman, 247 U. S. 102. Such is ordinarily the right to recover under a bill of lading issued in connection with an interstate shipment against the initial carrier. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612; Southern Railway Company v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632; Cincinnati & Pacific Ry. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319; Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry. v. Blish Co., 241 U. S. 190; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Olivit Bros., 243 U. S. 574; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Solum, 247 U. S. 477; but not where the State court finds from conflicting evidence that the loss was occasioned by the negligence of the connecting carrier. New Orleans & Northeastern R. R. Co. v. National Rice Milling Co., 34 U. S. 80; and see Eastern Railway v. Littlefield, 237 U. S. 141. Or against a connecting or delivering carrier to whom the goods have been delivered for transport,
the United States, and the decision is either in favor of or Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. right or immunity under an authorCo. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173; ity exercised under the United Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wall, 241 States. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. U. S. 87; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Johnson, 151 U. S. 81, 99, 38 L. ed. Fe Ry, Co. v. Texas Packing Co., 81, 87; Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. 244 U. S. 31. See the Carmack S. 327, 38 L. ed. 463; Pittsburgh, Amendment of March 4, 1915, ch. C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Long 176, 38 St. at L. 119. Or the Federal Island L. & Tr. Co., 172 U. S. 493, land laws, when the validity of a 43 L. ed. 528; Virginia-Carolina treaty, or statute or authority of Chemical Co. v. Kirven, 215 U. S. the United States is not questioned. 252, 54 L. ed. 179; Radford v. See Gauthier v. Morrison, 232 U. S. Myers, 231 U. S. 725; Roller v. 452; Logan v. Davis, 233 U. S. 613; Murray, 234 U. S. 738; Parker v. State of California Deseret McLain, 237 U. S. 469; Supreme Water, Oil & Irrigation Co., 243 U. Council of the Royal Arcanum v. S. 415. For a decision that the con- Green, 237 U. S. 531; Hartford Life struction of the National Bank Act Insurance Company v. Ibs, 237 U. was not in question, see Union Na- S. 662; Penna. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold tional Bank v. McBoyle, 243 U. S. Issue Mining Co., 243 U. S. 93. 26. In Ferry v. King County, 141 Cf. Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman U. S. 668, 35 L. ed. 895, held: that Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300. But see the fact that a State statute and a Avery v. Popper, 179 U. S. 305, 45 mortgage made in pursuance thereof L. ed. 203. A refusal to give full referred to certain acts of Congress faith and credit to a judgment of as prescribing the rule and measure another State in the Union is reof the rights granted by the State viewable. Roller v. Murray, 234 U. thereunde did not make the deter- S. 738; Hartford Life Ins.. Co. v. mination of such rights a Federal Barber, 245 U. S. 146, 38 Sup. Ct. question. Miller's Ex’rs v. Swann, 54, 62 L. ed. 208; Bates v. Bodie, 150 U. S. 132, 137, 37 L. ed. 1028, 245 U. S. 520, 38 Sup. Ct. 182, 62 per Brewer, J. In the absence of an
L. ed. 444. A State court does not act of Congress upon the subject no
deny full faith and credit to a prn. writ of error will review a judg
vision of a statute or constitution of ment concerning an obstruction to a
another State by giving an erronenavigable stream. North Shore
construction thereto. SmithBoom & Driving Co. v. Nicomen
sonian Institution v. St. John, 214 Boom Co., 212 U. S. 406, 53 L. ed.
U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 892; El Paso & 574,
Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Eichel, 5 A judgment for the recovery of land against defendants, of
226 U. S. 590, 57 L, ed. 43; Hartficers of the army, who claim to
ford Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 249 hold the land as the property of
U. S. 490. There is no claim of the United States, may be reviewed. a right or immunity under the ConStanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508, stitution of the United States by a 37 L. ed. 259. A defense grounded
suit or defense founded upon the upon an order, judgment or decree judgment of a foreign State, unof a Federal court is a claim of a less the plaintiff in error rests upon