Huntington v. Laidley
Citations
- 176 U.S. 668
- 20 S. Ct. 526
- 44 L. Ed. 630
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1763
Syllabus
<p>In order to maintain a direct appeal to this court from the Circuit Court of the United States under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, as to the jurisdiction of the court below, the record must distinctly and unequivocally show that that court sends up for consideration a single and definite question of its jurisdiction; but this may appear either by the terms of the decree appealed from and of the order allowing the appeal, or by a separate certificate of that court.</p> <p>A certificate of a question of jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States, under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, may be made by the District Judge, even if the decree was rendered by the Circuit Judge.</p> <p>The question whether proceedings concerning the legal or equitable title to land, begun and concluded in the courts of a State, before the commencement of a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States to charge the land with a trust, afford a defence to this suit, is not a question affecting the jurisdiction of that court, but a question affecting the merits of the cause, and as such to be tried and determined by that court in the exercise of its jurisdiction; and if that court, of its own motion, and without hearing the parties on the question of its jurisdiction, enters a final decree dismissing the suit under the- act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 5, upon the ground that by reason of the proceedings in the courts of the ■ State the suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within its jurisdiction, and an appeal is taken to this court upon the question of jurisdiction only, under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 617, § 5, the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings</p>
Judges: Brewer, Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court· 1900-05-21· cited 382×
- Giles v. HarrisSupreme Court· 1903-04-27· cited 129×
- Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.Supreme Court· 1902-05-05· cited 109×
- Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appt. v. Wirt AdamsSupreme Court· 1901-01-07· cited 73×
- Courtney v. PradtSupreme Court· 1905-01-03· cited 39×
- Hill v. WalkerEighth Circuit· 1909-02-01· cited 29×
- Gillis v. Keystone Mut. Casualty Co.Sixth Circuit· 1949-02-18· cited 20×
- Howard v. De CordovaSupreme Court· 1900-05-14· cited 18×
- Davis v. ShacklefordEighth Circuit· 1937-07-06· cited 8×
- St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. American Cotton Co.Eighth Circuit· 1903-09-07· cited 8×
- Ferriday v. Middlesex Banking Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana· 1906-12-10· cited 6×
- United States Mortgage & Trust Co. v. DeaverFifth Circuit· 1930-11-26· cited 4×
- Wish v. Pacific States Life Ins.E.D. Illinois· 1935-09-13· cited 1×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Wetmore v. RymerSupreme Court· 1898-01-17· cited 150×
- Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. GibneySupreme Court· 1895-12-16· cited 97×
- Diggs v. WolcottSupreme Court· 1807-02-28· cited 72×
- Blythe v. HinckleySupreme Court· 1899-04-03· cited 58×
- Maynard v. HechtSupreme Court· 1894-01-22· cited 34×
- In Re Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1895-03-04· cited 13×
- Van Wagenen v. SewallSupreme Court· 1896-01-06· cited 7×
- Davis v. GeisslerSupreme Court· 1896-04-13· cited 4×
Other cases named Huntington v. Laidley
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.