Cameron v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 11 March 1818 |
| Citation | 3 Wheat. 591,16 U.S. 591,4 L.Ed. 467 |
| Parties | CAMERON v. McROBERTS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the circuit court for the district of Kentucky.
John McRoberts, stated in the pleadings to be a citizen of the state of Kentucky, brought his suit in equity, in the district court of Kentucky (said court then having by law the jurisdiction of a circuit court,) against Charles Cameron, stated to be a citizen of Virginia, and Ephraim Jackson, Samuel Emerson, and other parties named in the bill, without any designation of citizenship. The defendant Cameron was not served with process, but appeared and answered the bill, as did the other defendants. The cause was heard, and at the November term of said court, in 1804, a final decree was pronounced for the plaintiff McRoberts.
In 1805, the defendant Cameron filed a bill of review, which is now pending, and at the May term of the circuit court, of 1811, moved the court to set aside the decree, and to dismiss the suit, because the want of jurisdiction appeared on the record; and upon the allegation that the said Jackson, Emerson, and the other parties to the bill, were, in fact, citizens of the state of Kentucky. On which motion the following questions arose:
1st. Has the circuit court power and jurisdiction over a judgment or decree, so as to set the same aside after the term at which it was pronounced?
2d. If it has, could it be exercised after the lapse of five years?
3d. Had the district court jurisdiction of the cause as to the defendant Cameron and the other defendants. If not, had the court jurisdiction as to the defendant Cameron alone?- Upon which question the judges of the circuit court being devided in opinion, the same were ordered to be certified to this court.
The cause was argued at the last term by Mr. M. D. Hardin, for the plaintiff, McRoberts; no counsel appearing for the defendant.
At the present term of this court it was ordered to be certified to the circuit court for the district of Kentucky as follows, viz.
CERTIFICATE. This cause came on to be heard on the statement of facts contained in the record, and on the questions on which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed, and which were, therefore, at the request of one of the parties, adjourned to this court, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof this court doth order it to be certified to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.
1st. That in this case the court had not power...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Davis
...word 'process,' as there used, means 'proceeding.' But in addition, see Sibbald v. U.S., 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591, 4 L.Ed. 467; Bank v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38, 39, 12 L.Ed. Hall v. Lanning, 91 U.S. 163, 165, 23 L.Ed. 271; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. ......
-
Swift Co v. United States
...the determination by the Supreme Court of the District that a case or controversy existed is not open to attack. Compare Cameron v. M'Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591, 4 L. Ed. 467; McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192, 199, 6 L. Ed. 300; Kennedy v. Georgia Bank, 8 How. 586, 611, 612, 12 L. Ed. 1209;......
-
Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co.
...it was to be performed there; consequently its validity is governed by the laws of that state. 3 28 U.S.C.A. § 111. 4 Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591, 4 L.Ed. 467; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 15 L.Ed. 158; Kendig v. Dean, 97 U.S. 423, 24 L.Ed. 1061; Gregory v. Stetson, 133 U.S. 579, ......
-
Gilmore v. United States
...entered, unless the proceeding for that purpose was begun during that term. Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591, 4 L.Ed. 467; Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167, 1169; Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38, 12 L.Ed. 331, 334; ......
-
REEXAMINING RECALL OF MANDATE: LIMITATIONS ON THE INHERENT POWER TO CHANGE FINAL JUDGMENTS.
...410, 417 (1881); Wash. Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U.S. 413, 424 (1845); Browder v. McArthur, 20 U.S. 58, 58 (1822); Cameron v. McRoberts, 16 U.S. 591, 593 (25.) Peck v. Sanderson, 59 U.S. 42, 42 (1855). (26.) Id. The Court did note that Sanderson's absence of counsel was "a subject of regret......
-
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
...conferred jurisdiction only over actions in which all joined claims were between diverse parties."). (93.) Id. (94.) Cameron v. McRoberts, 16 U.S. 591 (95.) Id. at 592. (96.) Id. (97.) Id. (98.) Id. (99.) Id. at 593. A certificate of division initiated an interlocutory determination by the ......