FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   785   786   787   788   789   790   791   792   793   794  
795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   >>   >|  
etween a State and its citizens, and, perhaps every case in which a State is enforcing its penal laws. In such cases, therefore, the Supreme Court cannot take original jurisdiction." [590] Ohio ex rel. Popovici _v._ Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930). [591] 3 Dall. 321 (1796). Justice Wilson dissented from this holding and contended that the appellate jurisdiction, as being derived from the Constitution, could be exercised without an act of Congress or until Congress made exceptions to it. [592] Durousseau _v._ United States, 6 Cr. 307 (1810). [593] 6 Wall. 318 (1868); 7 Wall. 506 (1869). [594] 15 Stat. 44 (1868). [595] 7 Wall. 506, 514. The Court also took occasion to reiterate the rule that an affirmation of appellate jurisdiction is a negative of all other and stated that as a result acts of Congress providing for the exercise of jurisdiction had "come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to * * * it." It continued grandly: "* * * judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer." Ibid. 513, 515. [596] _See_ especially the parallel case of Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 (1869). For cases following Ex parte McCardle, _see_ Railroad Co. _v._ Grant, 98 U.S. 398, 491 (1878); Kurtz _v._ Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487, 497 (1885); Cross _v._ Burke, 146 U.S. 82, 86 (1892); Missouri _v._ Missouri Pacific R. Co., 292 U.S. 13, 15 (1934); Stephan _v._ United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426 (1943). _See also_ United States _v._ Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 399-400 (1908), where it was held that there is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court except as an act of Congress confers it. [597] 105 U.S. 381 (1882). [598] Ibid. 386. _See also_ Barry _v._ Mercein, 5 How. 103, 119 (1847); National Exchange Bank _v._ Peters, 144 U.S. 570 (1892); American Construction Co. _v._ Jacksonville T. & K.W.R. Co., 148 U.S. 372 (1893); Colorado Central Consol. Min. Co. _v._ Turck, 150 U.S. 138 (1893); St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. _v._ Taylor, 210 U.S. 281 (1908); Luckenbach S.S. Co. _v._ United States, 272 U.S. 533 (1926). [599] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816). [600] Ibid. 374. [601] Ibid. 331. This recognition, however, is followed by the statement that "the whole judicial power of the United States should be at all times, vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under its authority." [602] 2
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   785   786   787   788   789   790   791   792   793   794  
795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
jurisdiction
 

United

 

States

 

Congress

 

appellate

 

exceptions

 
judicial
 
Constitution
 

Missouri

 
Supreme

original

 

Peters

 
Mercein
 

Exchange

 

National

 

Stephan

 

Pacific

 

appeal

 
confers
 
recognition

statement

 

created

 
authority
 
courts
 

vested

 

Colorado

 

Central

 
Consol
 

Construction

 

American


Jacksonville

 

Luckenbach

 

Taylor

 

exercised

 
derived
 

dissented

 
holding
 

contended

 
Durousseau
 

Wilson


Justice

 

citizens

 

etween

 
enforcing
 

Popovici

 

occasion

 

reiterate

 

McCardle

 

Yerger

 
parallel