United States v. Larkin
Citations
- 208 U.S. 333
- 28 S. Ct. 417
- 52 L. Ed. 517
- 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1445
Syllabus
<p>Where the Circuit Court of Appeals has already affirmed the judgment of the District or Circuit Court, a writ of error from this court to the District or Circuit Court to review the judgment on the jurisdictional ground cannot be maintained unless the proceedings in the Circuit Court of Appeals were absolutely void.</p> <p>Ordinarily .a formal certificate is essential and it must be made at the same term at which the judgment is rendered; but where the record shows that the only matter tried and decided, and sought to be reviewed, was one of the jurisdiction of the court, ibe question of jurisdiction is sufficiently certified.</p> <p>District Courts of the United States are the proper courts to adjudicate forfeitures; and where the plea to the jurisdiction is simply whether the particular court has jurisdiction, by reason of the locality in which the goods were seized, the question involved is not the jurisdiction of the United States court as such, and the question cannot be certified to this court under § 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891; but the ease is appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals.</p> <p>When the question of the jurisdiction of the District or Circuit Court as a court of the United States is in issue, and is certified to this court under § 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1891, no other question can be considered and the jurisdiction of this court is exclusive; as to the other classes of cases enumerated in § 5 the act of 1891 does not contemplate separate appeals or writs of error on the merits in the same case and at the same time to . two appellate courts.</p>
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Munro v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1938-01-31· cited 146×
- Reid v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1909-01-04· cited 86×
- Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1910-04-04· cited 77×
- The Steamship JeffersonSupreme Court· 1909-11-29· cited 72×
- United States v. Congress Construction Co.Supreme Court· 1911-12-04· cited 65×
- Noel v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1989-01-05· cited 22×
- Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Third Circuit· 1910-11-17· cited 16×
- Keatley v. FureySupreme Court· 1912-12-23· cited 15×
- Munro v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1937-04-12· cited 15×
- American Electric Welding Co. v. Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co.First Circuit· 1918-03-18· cited 8×
- Central State Bank of Corsicana v. United States & Guaranty Co.Fifth Circuit· 1925-11-25· cited 2×
- In re GarrosiFirst Circuit· 1916-01-27· cited 2×
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1909-11-15· cited 1×
- United States v. Mill Creek & Mine Hill Navigation & Railroad ex rel. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1919-12-08· cited 1×
- Patterson v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Third Circuit· 1918-05-16· cited 1×
- Nickels v. Pullman Co.Fourth Circuit· 1919-10-23· cited 1×
- Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Metropolitan Street Railway CompanySupreme Court· 1909-11-15
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- McLish v. RoffSupreme Court· 1891-12-07· cited 195×
- Wetmore v. RymerSupreme Court· 1898-01-17· cited 150×
- Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court· 1900-12-10· cited 149×
- Mexican Central Railway Co. v. EckmanSupreme Court· 1903-01-05· cited 72×
- Blythe v. HinckleySupreme Court· 1899-04-03· cited 58×
- Louisville Trust Co. v. KnottSupreme Court· 1903-11-30· cited 52×
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. New OrleansSupreme Court· 1901-04-29· cited 50×
- Colvin v. JacksonvilleSupreme Court· 1895-05-27· cited 42×
- Maynard v. HechtSupreme Court· 1894-01-22· cited 34×
- Robinson v. CaldwellSupreme Court· 1897-02-01· cited 31×
- Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. ThiebaudSupreme Court· 1900-05-14· cited 9×
- Columbus Construction Co. v. Crane Co.Supreme Court· 1899-05-22· cited 3×
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.