City of Waterville v. Van Slyke
Decision Date | 01 March 1886 |
Citation | 29 L.Ed. 772,6 S.Ct. 622,116 U.S. 699 |
Parties | CITY OF WATERVILLE v. VAN SLYKE. Filed |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
E. Stillings, for plaintiff in error.
S. E. Brown, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to the circuit court for the district of Kansas. In that court there was a judgment against the plaintiff in error for the sum of $1,282.06. The amount is too small to give this court jurisdiction on a writ of error to a circuit court. There is, however, a certificate of division of opinion between the circuit judge and the district judge sitting at the trial without a jury. We have decided that under the act of 1872 a case may be brought to this court on a certificate of division, without regard to the amount in controversy. Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158. But that decision was based upon a valid certificate which presented properly questions material to the decision of the case. If this were not necessary to our jurisdiction, a form of certificate which might present no question that this court can consider might be used to require of it a review of other matters than those on which the court divided, though the amount in controversy is insignificant. It is therefore only where the certificate does present, in accordance with the statute, a division of opinion in such a manner and on such a question as to give this court jurisdiction that the amount in controversy can be disregarded as an element of jurisdiction.
As to the character of the certificate on which this court will act, the statute of 1872 and the Revised Statutes have made no change, and the decisions of this court and full on that subject. The substance of these decisions, as applicable to the case before us, is that each question so certified must contain a distinct proposition of law which this court can answer negatively or affirmatively, and that the whole case cannot be presented by a recital of the evidence and interrogatories so framed as to require this court to decide the whole case on mixed propositions of law and fact. In short, while such a statement of facts must accompany the certificate as to show that the question of law is applicable to the case, the point on which the judges differed must be a distinct question of law, clearly stated.
In Wilson v. Barnum, 8 How. 258, the court said: The same thing is said in Brobst v. Brobst, 4 Wall. 2; namely, that 'it has been repeatedly determined that only questions of law upon distinct points in a cause can be brought to the court by certificate.' In the case of U. S. v. Briggs, 5 How. 208, on a demurrer to indictment, the judges certified a division of opinion as to whether the demurrer was well taken; and, though the record showed the grounds of demurrer, the court said: Having said that the causes of demurrer could not inform the court on that subject, the chief justice added: 'But we are bound to look to the certificate alone for the question which occurred and for the point on which they differed, and as this does not appear, we have no jurisdiction in the case.' A case very analogous to the one before us is that of White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 238, in which the court says: To the same purport is the language guage of Chief Justice MARSHALL in U. S. v. Baily, 9 Pet. 273. In the case of Havemeyer v. Iowa Co., 3 Wall. 294, the point is fully considered. See, also, Dennistoun v. Stewart, 18 How....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jewell v. Knight
...v. Mortgage Co., 106 U. S. 605, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 91; Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U. S. 609, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 618; Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Bank v. Knapp, 119 U. S. 357, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 274. The question of fraud or no fraud is one necessarily compounded of f......
-
State v. Bolln
... ... Ins. Co., 18 ... How., 577; Cal. Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609; ... Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U.S. 699; Little v ... Bowers, 134 U.S. 547.) ... The ... question ... v. Truesdale, 8 Mich., 543; Jones v. Smith, 14 ... Mich. 335; Bragg v. City of Detroit, 5 Mich., 66; ... White v. Turk, 12 Pet., 238; U. S. v ... Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., ... ...
-
Kelley-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Liberty Ins. Co.
...in question have been constantly refused consideration. Saunders v. Gould, 4 Pet. 392; U. S. v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 272; Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 6 Sup. Ct. 622; U. S. v. Hall, 131 U. S. 51, 9 Sup. Ct. 663; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 432, 8 Sup. Ct. 193; White v. Turk, 12 Pet. 23......
-
Williamsport Nat Bank v. Knapp
...U. S. 605; S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 91; California Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U. S. 609, 615-617; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 618; Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699-704; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. Tested by these rules, the first and second questions certified, each being whether, 'under the evidenc......