Gowen v. Bush
| Decision Date | 03 February 1896 |
| Docket Number | 605,615.,535 |
| Citation | 72 F. 299 |
| Parties | GOWEN v. BUSH. DAVISON v. GIBSON. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO. v. BARKER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
J. W McLoud, for plaintiff in error Gowen.
William H. H. Clayton (James Brizzolara, James B. Forrester, and James Parks were with him on brief), for defendant in error Bush.
S. B Dawes (S. S. Fears was with him on brief), for plaintiff in error Davison.
William T. Hutchings (Nathan A. Gibson was with him on brief), for defendant in error Gibson.
P. L Soper (Edward D. Kenna was with him on brief), for plaintiff in error St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co.
R. Sarlls, for defendant in error Barker.
Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
In the above-entitled cases the several writs of error were sued out before the act of March 1, 1895 (28 Stat. 693, c. 145), creating a court of appeals for the Indian Territory, and giving it appellate jurisdiction over the United States courts in that territory, took effect. The several writs of error now in question were therefore properly sued out and returned to this court. But the cases had not been heard when the act of March 1, 1895, went into operation. The point is now made that, inasmuch as the act of March 1, 1895, contains no saving clause reserving to this court the power to hear and decide such cases coming from the United States court in the Indian Territory as might be pending and undetermined at the time the act of March 1, 1895, took effect, this court is now without power to hear and decide such cases. We are constrained to hold that this point is well taken. The act of March 1, 1895, unquestionably deprived this court of the appellate jurisdiction theretofore exercised over the United States court in the Indian Territory, and it contained no express reservation of power to hear and decide such cases as might be pending when the act in question took effect. The case is therefore on all fours with Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398, where it was held that when the jurisdiction of an appellate court over cases coming from an inferior court is taken away by statute, the statute operates to deprive it of the power to hear and decide cases already pending on its docket which came from such inferior court, unless the power to hear and decide such cases is expressly reserved. With reference to this question Mr. Chief Justice Waite said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Iron-Silver Mining Co.
...2 Colo. 625; Smith v. District Court, 4 Colo. 235; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398; Gowen v. Bush, 36 U.S.App. 543, 18 C.C.A. 572, and 72 F. 299. We conclude, that the act of April 13, 1895, was intended to control subsequent proceedings in pending cases as well as proceedings in suits w......
- Gowen v. Bush
-
Gowen v. Bush
...Error to the United States Court in the Indian Territory. No opinion. The judgment entered in accordance with the opinions herein (18 C.C.A. 572, 72 F. 299) set aside, and the reinstated on the docket by the court of its own motion. ...