WEBSTER V. COOPER
| Decision Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
Where it appears that the whole case has been certified pro forma, in order to take the opinion of this Court, without any actual division of opinion in the circuit court, the practice is irregular, and the case must be remanded to the circuit court to be proceeded in according to law.
The decision of this Court in the case of Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41, affirmed.
It was a real action, in which the plaintiff demanded a certain parcel of land situated in Pittston, in the County of Kennebec and State of Maine, and claimed title under the will of one Florentius Vassal, made in England in 1777.
Most of the points of division certified arose upon the construction of this will, and the remainder were upon the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action, and the rule of estimation as to improvements, covering in fact the whole case.
This case has been argued at the bar upon points certified as upon a division of opinion in the circuit court. But it appears by the record that the whole case has been divided into points and sent up to this Court -- and several of the latter points could not have arisen on the trial until the previous ones were first decided. We understand it was a pro forma division, certified at the request of the counsel for the respective parties.
This Court has frequently said that this practice is irregular, and would, if sanctioned, convert this Court into one of original jurisdiction in questions of law instead of being, as the Constitution intended it to be, an appellate court to revise the decisions of inferior tribunals. Indeed, it would impose upon it the duty of deciding in the first instance, not only the questions of law which properly belonged to the case, but also questions merely hypothetical and speculative, and which might or might not arise, as previous questions were ruled the one way or the other.
The irregularity and evil tendency of this practice has upon several occasions attracted the attention of the court, although it has been occasionally acquiesced in, and the points so certified acted upon and decided. But at December term, 1847, the subject was very fully considered, and it was then determined that this practice ought not to be sanctioned, and that this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bagg v. Detroit
... ... have been certified, it will be dismissed for want of ... jurisdiction: Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 7 HOW 1; ... Webster v. Cooper, 51 U.S. 54, 10 HOW 54; White ... v. Turk., 12 Pet. 238; Saunders v. Gould, 4 ... Pet. 392; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 47 U.S. 41, 6 HOW 41; ... ...
- Macon v. State
-
The State of Missouri, Complainant v. the State of Iowa, Respondent 8212 the State of Iowa, Complainant v. the State of Missouri, Respondent 8212
...d y = - c2 x d x/a2 y; whence, d x2 + d y2 = (a4 y2 + c4 x2) d x2/a4 y2 (1.) Differentiating again, we find d2y = - (a2c2y2 + c4x2) d x2/a4y51 U.S. 54 10 How. 54 13 L.Ed. 325 HENRY WEBSTER, PLAINTIFF v. PETER COOPER. December Term, 1850 THIS case came up on a certificate of division of opin......
-
Appellate courts as first responders: the constitutionality and propriety of appellate courts' resolving issues in the first instance.
...(83) See id. (84) 215 U.S. 216 (1909). (85) See id. at 221-25. (86) See id. (87) Id. at 221 (emphasis added) (quoting Webster v. Cooper, 51 U.S. 54 (88) See id. at 224. (89) 281 U.S. 572 (1930). (90) Id. at 576-77. (91) As to the history and structure of Article III generally, see Eidsmoe, ......