King Iron Bridge Manuf Co v. County of Otoe
| Decision Date | 31 January 1887 |
| Parties | KING IRON BRIDGE & MANUF'G CO. v. COUNTY OF OTOE. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This action was brought November 10, 1885, by the King Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Company, a corporation of Ohio, against Otoe county, in the state of Nebraska, to recover the amount of two county warrants or orders, each signed by the chairman of the county commissioners of the county, and countersigned by the county clerk. One was dated October 9, 1878, and directed the and the other dated January 9, 1879, directed the The first one being presented for payment on the twenty-third of October, 1878, was indorsed by the treasurer, 'Presented, and not paid for want of funds.' The other was presented on the fifteenth of January, 1879, and received a like indorsement. The petition states, in respect of each warrant, that it had been, for a valuable consideration, 'sold, transferred, and delivered' by Z. King to the plaintiff, who sues as the holder and owner thereof. Judgment was asked for $3,210, with 10 per cent. interest on $1,605 thereof from October 23, 1878, and for $1,605, with like interest from January 15, 1879. The defense was the limitation of five years prescribed by the local law for an action 'upon a specialty, or any agreement, contract, or promise in writing, or foreign judgment.' The court below overruled a demurrer to the answer, and dismissed the action.
N. S. Narwood and J. H. Ames, for plaintiff in error.
John C. Watson, for defendant in error.
This case was argued upon the question of limitation. But we have no occasion to consider that question; for it does not appear that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the action. Unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record, the presumption, upon writ of error or appeal, is that the court below was without jurisdiction. Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 283, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207; Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407. That the point as to jurisdiction was not made here by either party is immaterial, because, as said in Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 382, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laufer v. Arpan LLC
...Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 518, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ); see also id. (citing King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County , 120 U.S. 225, 226, 7 S.Ct. 552, 30 L.Ed. 623 (1887), for the proposition that "facts supporting Article III jurisdiction must appear affirmatively from the reco......
-
Harris v. Reed
...475 U.S. 673, 692, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1442, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225, 226, 7 S.Ct. 552, 553, 30 L.Ed. 623 (1887)). Second, in its original form, the presumption adopted in Michigan v. Long expanded this Court's review......
-
Arizona v. Evans
...475 U.S. 673, 692, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1442, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225, 226, 7 S.Ct. 552, 30 L.Ed. 623 (1887)). And it is out of sync with the principle that this Court will avoid constitutional questions when an altern......
-
Akzona Inc. v. EI du Pont de Nemours & Co., Civ. A. No. 84-10 LON.
...see United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440, 56 S.Ct. 829, 831-832, 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936); King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225, 226, 7 S.Ct. 552, 552-553, 30 L.Ed. 623 (1887), noted in McGrath, 340 U.S. at 167 n. 9, 71 S.Ct. at 228 n. 9. In patent cases, "declaratory judgment ju......
-
Jurisdiction's noble lie.
...Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453 (1900); Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315, 325 (1889); King Iron Bridge & Mfg. Co. v. County of Otoe, 120 U.S. 225, 226 (1887); see also Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007) ("[T]his Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdi......