ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION CO. V. DAVIS PROVISION CO. NO. 2
Decision Date | 30 November 1903 |
Citation | 191 U. S. 376 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
When the circuit court has decided the question of its jurisdiction and the alleged unconstitutionality of a state law in favor of the plaintiff, but has decided against him on the merits, the plaintiff cannot appeal directly to this Court under the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, for the purpose of a revision of the judgment on the merits.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiff's bill. The bill is founded on the matters stated in the preceding case. It alleges that the Davis Provision Company recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in New York about a year and a half after the judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the Davis Provision Company in Illinois. It shows the effort of the plaintiff to recover in New
York on the Illinois judgment, and the action of the New York courts which we have reviewed. It alleges that the two judgments arose out of the same transaction, and that, by reason of the New York decision, the plaintiff is unable to set off the judgment against that obtained in New York by the defendant. It sets up the unconstitutionality of the New York statute, alleges the insolvency of the Davis Provision Company, and prays for a set-off of judgments. A demurrer to the bill was overruled, 105 F. 536, but on final hearing the bill was dismissed on the ground that the judgment in favor of the Davis Provision Company had been assigned to the defendant Weed, for value, and under such circumstances that it was not subject to the set-off claimed. The plaintiff appealed to this Court.
It was admitted by the appellant at the argument that the plaintiff would fail on the merits if the preceding case should be decided as it has been. But we are precluded from an inquiry into the merits, or even into the jurisdiction, taken by the circuit court under Rev.Stat. §§ 1977, 1979, until the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeal is established. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382.
Under the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827, this must be maintained either as a case in which the jurisdiction of the circuit court is in issue, or as a case in which the "law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States." With regard to the former ground, the circuit court sustained the jurisdiction, and the case is disposed of by United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 114-115.
and it has nothing of which to complain. "As a general rule, the court will not allow a party to rely on anything as cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monroe v. Pape
......s 1343, 1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. 2 . . Page 170 . The City of ... It was this provision that raised the greatest storm. It was § 2 that was ...615, 11 S.Ct. 188, 34 L.Ed. 792; and see Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Prov. Co., No. 2, 191 U.S. 376, 24 ......
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina
...page 14, 30 S.Ct. at page 9, 54 L.Ed. 65, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 924, 17 Ann.Cas. 853. That the case of Angle-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 376, 24 S.Ct. 93, 48 L.Ed. 228, is not an exception but only an appropriate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens see ......
-
Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. v. I.C.C.
......) Montauk, New York to Groton/New London, Connecticut, and 2) Montauk to Block Island, Rhode Island. See Cross-Sound I, ... Relying on a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act that declares transportation ...Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 404 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2366 n. 5, 60 ......
-
N.Y. Tel. Co. v. Maltbie
......United States, 216 U.S. 611, 612, 613; Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 376, 377, ......