Skip to main content
· 12/23/1912

Keatley v. Furey

Citations

  • 226 U.S. 399
  • 33 S. Ct. 121
  • 57 L. Ed. 273
  • 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2162

Syllabus

<p>In order to warrant a direct appeal to this court under § 5 of the Court of Appeals Act of 1891, the jurisdiction of the Federal court as such must be involved.</p> <p>Whether title to the assets outside the State passed to a receiver of a corporation under an order of the court in the State of organization depends upon the law of that State, and a decision by a Federal court in another State having custody of assets through a receiver that no title passed and dismissing a petition of the first named receiver to intervene, does not involve the question of jurisdiction of the Federal court and warrant a direct appeal to this court.</p> <p>In such a case the judge denying the petition to intervene is right in certifying that no question of jurisdiction exists.</p> <p>In such a case the Federal court has jurisdiction over the intervention whether it has jurisdiction as a Federal court of the principal case or not; and until final decree in the principal ease the question of jurisdiction is not open.</p>

Judges: Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.