Aztec Min Co. v. Ripley
| Decision Date | 17 October 1892 |
| Docket Number | 70. |
| Citation | 53 F. 7 |
| Parties | AZTEC MIN. CO. v. RIPLEY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Warwick Hough and Warwick M. Hough, for the motion.
Nathan Frank, opposed.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and rcuit Judges, and SHIRAS, District Judge.
In September, 1890, John W. Ripley, a resident of the territory of New Mexico, brought an action in assumpsit in the district court of the third judicial district of said territory against the Aztec Mining Company, a corporation created and organized under the laws of said territory of New Mexico, to recover the sum of $1,617.15, alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered. Judgment having been entered in favor of the plaintiff in the action, the defendant therein sued out a writ of error to the supreme court of the territory, which on the 6th of January, 1892, affirmed the judgment of the district court, (28 P. 773,) and thereupon the Aztec Mining Company sued out a writ of error in this court to the supreme court of the territory, and duly filed the transcript of the record, and caused the case to be docketed in this court. The defendant in error, John W Ripley, now files a motion to dismiss the writ on the ground that this court does not have jurisdiction, and cannot review the proceedings and judgment had in the supreme court of the territory in this cause.
The jurisdiction of the circuit courts of appeal to review the judgments and decrees of the supreme courts of the territories is conferred by the fifteenth section of the act of March 3, 1891, which reads as follows:
'That the circuit courts of appeal, in cases in which the judgments of the circuit courts of appeal are made final by this act, shall have the same appellate jurisdiction, by writ of error or appeal, to review the judgments, orders, and decrees of the supreme courts of the several territories as by this act they may have to review the judgments, orders, and decrees of the district court and circuit courts; and for that purpose the several territories shall, by orders of the supreme court, to be made from time to time, be assigned to particular circuits.'
By order of the supreme court, the territory of New Mexico has been assigned to this circuit, and this court therefore possesses over the decrees and judgments of the supreme court of that territory the jurisdiction that is conferred by the section of the act of March 3, 1891, above cited. This section expressly limits the appellate jurisdiction of this court to cases in which the judgment of this court is made final by the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891. Section 6 of that act enacts that 'the judgments or decrees of the circuit courts of appeal shall be final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy being aliens or citizens of the United States, or citizens of different states; also in all cases arising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Champlin
... ... and the reasons for this conclusion have been repeatedly ... stated, in Mining Co. v. Ripley, 53 F. 7, 3 C.C.A ... 388, Badaracco v. U.S. 79, 14 Sup.Ct. 236, 38 L.Ed ... 80, and no good purpose would be served by rehearsing them ... ...
-
Badaracco v. Cerf
...that the right so to do is granted by the provisions of section 15 of the act of congress approved March 3, 1891. In the case of Mining Co. v. Ripley, 53 F. 7, we called upon to consider the extent of the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the judgments and decrees rendered in the su......