the old Spanish or Mexican law as to the rights of the original
pueblo of Los Angeles succeeded to by the present city and such
rights were merely confirmed and not originated by proceedings
under acts of Congress; and therefore, as no rights existing under
an authority of the United States were denied, this court has no
jurisdiction to review the judgment under § 709, Rev. Stat. Los
Angeles Milling Co. v. Los Angeles, 217.
5. Under § 709; no Federal question involved in decision of who entitled
to lands under patent.
Where the state court only decides who is entitled to lands under a
patent no Federal question is necessarily involved and this court
does not have jurisdiction to review under § 709, Rev. Stat., and
in this case no Federal question was decided directly or by im-
plication. Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 589.
6. Under § 5 of act of 1891; effect of improper certificate.
Even though the certificate is not in proper form this court can review
the judgment of the Circuit Court under § 5 of the act of 1891 if the
record shows clearly that the only matter tried and decided in that
court was one of jurisdiction. Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St.
Louis Ry. Co., 157.
7. Under act of 1891; effect of suing out writ of error from Circuit Court
of Appeals and its dismissal.
The fact that a writ of error was sued out from the Circuit Court of
Appeals to the Circuit Court and dismissed is not a bar to the
jurisdiction of this court to review the judgment of the Circuit
Court on the question of its jurisdiction as a Federal Court. Ib.
8. To review decision of Circuit Court of Appeals in case brought under
Trade-mark Act.
Under §§ 17, 18, of the Trade-mark Act of February 20, 1905, c. 592,
33 Stat. 724, and § 6 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of
March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, a final decision of the Circuit
Court of Appeals in a case brought under the Trade-mark Act
can only be reviewed by this court upon certiorari. (Atkins v.
Moore, 212 U. S. 284.) Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy, 457.
9. Of appeal from Circuit Court on judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals
in intervention where original case based upon diverse citizenship.
Jurisdiction in case of an intervention is determined by that of the
main case, and where the original foreclosure case was based
solely upon diverse citizenship an appeal from the judgment of
the Circuit Court of Appeals on a petition to enforce rights granted
by a decree in an intervention in such foreclosure suit does not lie
to this court. St. Louis, K. C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Wabash R. R.
Co., 247.
10. Same-Introduction of new questions by Circuit Court after case
remanded.
Where the Circuit Court of Appeals remands a suit to the Circuit
Court with instructions to enter a decree, the Circuit Court can-
not, without permission from the Circuit Court of Appeals, intro-
duce new questions into the litigation; and the unwarranted
introduction of new questions cannot be made the basis of juris-
diction. The mere construction of a decree involves no challenge
of its validity. Ib.
11. Want of jurisdiction to review judgment of state court where Federal
question without merit.
A writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Wis-
consin on the ground that ch. 90, Laws of 1903 and §§ 2524, 2530,
2533, Wisconsin statutes, are unconstitutional, as denying due
process of law and equal protection of the law, dismissed for want
of jurisdiction as the Federal question attempted to be raised is
without merit. Vought v. Wisconsin, 590.
12. Order to dismiss not reviewable.
In this case the decision appealed from, being merely an order to dis-
miss and not a determination on the merits, is not reviewable here
and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Wenar v.
Jones, 593.
13. Judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing a case for want of juris-
diction affirmed without opinion. American National Bank v.
Tappan, 600..
See APPEAL AND ERROR;
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, 3.
B. OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.
See MANDAMUs, 3, 4;
WRIT AND PROCESS.
1. Under act of March 3, 1875, of action against corporation and stock-
holders; diversity of citizenship.
Under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, the Circuit Court
may have jurisdiction of an action brought by a resident of one
State against a corporation organized under the laws of another
State and stockholders of that corporation for the purpose of
removing encumbrances from the property of the corporation in
the District in which the suit is brought, even if some of the stock-
holders are not residents of the District in which they are sued.
(Jellenik v. Huron Copper Mining Co., 177 U. S. 1.) Schultz v.
Diehl, 594.
2. Action on judgment obtained in patent case not a suit upon a patent
and court without jurisdiction.
An action on a judgment obtained in a patent case is not itself a suit
upon a patent, and the Circuit Court, in the absence of diverse
citizenship; does not have jurisdiction thereof; and so held in
regard to an action against directors of an insolvent corporation
to make them personally responsible for a judgment recovered in
the United States Circuit Court for damages for infringing Letters
Patent; nor in this case can the complaint be construed as making
such defendants joint tort-feasors with the corporation in in-
fringing the patent so as to confer jurisdiction on the court.
H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 497.
3. Of suits under Trade-mark Act.
In a suit in the Circuit Court under the Trade-mark Act where diverse
citizenship does not exist the court's jurisdiction extends only to
the use of the registered trade-mark in commerce between the
States with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes. Hutchinson,
Pierce & Co. v. Loewy, 457.
4. To enjoin collection of judgment of state court.
Held, without opinion, that the Circuit Court of the United States
had no jurisdiction of this action to enjoin the collection of a
judgment entered against appellant in the state court. Illinois
Cent. R. R. Co. v. Sheegog, 599.
1. Under § 5339, Rev. Stat.; application of words "out of the jurisdiction
of any particular State."
The words "out of the jurisdiction of any particular State" as used in
§ 5339, Rev. Stat., refer to the States of the Union and not to any
separate particular community; and one committing the crimes
referred to in that section in the harbor of Honolulu in the Terri-
tory of Hawaii is within the jurisdiction of the District Court of
the United States for that Territory. United States v. Bevans, 3
Wheat. 337, and Talbot v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, dis-
tinguished. Wynne v. United States, 234.
2. Under § 5339, Rev. Stat.; effect of § 5 of Organic Act of Hawaii of 1890.
While by § 5 of the Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii of April 30,
1890, c. 339, 31 Stat. 141, the Constitution of the United States
and laws not locally inapplicable were extended to Hawaii, and
by § 6 of that act laws of Hawaii not repealed and not inconsistent
with such Constitution and laws were left in force, nothing in the
act operated to leave intact the jurisdiction of the territorial
courts over crimes committed in the harbors of Hawaiian ports
exclusively cognizable by the courts of the United States under
§ 5339, Rev. Stat. Ib.
E. OF TERRITORIAL COURTS.
See Supra, D 2.
F. OF FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY.
1. Appellate jurisdiction; character of.
Appellate jurisdiction in the Federal system of procedure is purely
statutory. (American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa &
Key West Railway Co., 148 U. S. 372.) Heike v. United States, 423.
2. Distribution of jurisdiction under Circuit Court of Appeals Act.
The great purpose of the Court of Appeals Act to which all its pro-
visions are subservient is to distribute jurisdiction of the Federal
courts and to relieve the docket of this court by casting on the
Circuit Courts of Appeals the duty of deciding cases over which
their jurisdiction is final. Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight,
257.
G. OF STATE COURTS.
See INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Right of one not personally served to appear specially to contest jurisdic-
tion over property.
A court cannot without personal service acquire jurisdiction over the
person. and it is open to one not served, but whose property is
attached, to appear specially to contest the control of the court
over such property; and in this case the appearance of the de-
fendant for that purpose was special and not general. Davis v.
Cleveland, C., C. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 157.
LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWERS.
See GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, 2.
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7, 8, 34.
LICENSE TAX.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23-26;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 3.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
See CONDEMNATION OF LAND, 2.
LIS PENDENS.
See LOCAL LAW (PORTO RICO).
Arkansas. Anti-drumming law of 1907 (see Constitutional Law, 32)
Williams v. Arkansas, 79.
Distribution of freight cars on railroads (see Constitutional Law,
3). St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Arkansas, 136.
|