MacFadden v. United States
Citations
- 213 U.S. 288
- 29 S. Ct. 490
- 53 L. Ed. 801
- 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1874
Syllabus
<p>■ The object of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517,26 Stat. 826, was to distribute the appellate jurisdiction of this court between it and the Circuit Court of Appeals, and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.</p> <p>Although where a real constitutional question exists a writ of error can be sued out directly from this court to the trial court under § 5 of the act of 1891, the right to do so is lost by taking an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359.</p> <p>The Circuit Court of Appeals does not lose its jurisdiction of an appeal under § 6 of the act of 1891 because questions were involved which would have warranted a direct appeal to this court under § 5 of that act.</p> <p>Where .the case can be taken directly to this court under § 5, or to the Circuit Court of Appeals under § 6, and the latter appeal is taken, while a writ of error will lie to the Circuit Court of Appeals if the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court rests, as shown by plaintiff’s statement, on grounds, one of which is reviewable by this court, it will not lie if the only ground of jurisdiction is one where the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final.</p> <p>The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a criminal case is final, and is no less so because the appellate jurisdiction of this court might have been invoked directly under § 5 of the act of 1891. -</p>
Judges: Moody
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Billings v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1914-02-24· cited 284×
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSupreme Court· 1960-03-07· cited 196×
- Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1911-04-17· cited 177×
- Railroad Commission of Ohio v. Worthington, Receiver of Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad CompanySupreme Court· 1912-05-27· cited 117×
- Mayor of Vicksburg v. HensonSupreme Court· 1913-12-01· cited 93×
- Parmelee v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1940-05-14· cited 70×
- Southern Pacific Co. v. StewartSupreme Court· 1917-12-17· cited 52×
- Chicago Junction Railway Co. v. KingSupreme Court· 1911-12-11· cited 47×
- B. Altman & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1912-05-13· cited 43×
- Lovell v. Newman & SonSupreme Court· 1913-02-24· cited 42×
- National Brake & Electric Co. v. ChristensenSupreme Court· 1920-04-27· cited 37×
- Railroad Comm'n of Ohio v. WorthingtonSupreme Court· 1912-05-27· cited 30×
- G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publishing Co.Supreme Court· 1915-06-01· cited 29×
- City of Memphis v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court· 1910-12-12· cited 26×
- United States Ex Rel. Chott v. EwingSupreme Court· 1915-04-12· cited 12×
- Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory of AlaskaSupreme Court· 1919-03-03· cited 8×
- Reed v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1915-07-12· cited 6×
- Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise CitySupreme Court· 1913-06-16· cited 5×
- Friedman v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1917-05-07· cited 2×
- North Carolina Mining Co. v. WestfeldtSupreme Court· 1909-11-15· cited 1×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court· 1908-11-16· cited 1,832×
- Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court· 1900-12-10· cited 149×
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. New OrleansSupreme Court· 1901-04-29· cited 50×
- Robinson v. CaldwellSupreme Court· 1897-02-01· cited 31×
- Huguley Manufacturing Co. v. Galeton Cotton MillsSupreme Court· 1902-02-24· cited 27×
- Cary Manufacturing Co. v. Acme Flexible Clasp Co.Supreme Court· 1903-01-05· cited 14×
Other cases named MacFadden v. United States
4 other CourtListener records share 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.