Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

McKnight v. James

McKnight v. James, 155 U.S. 685 (1895)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1895-01-21
Topic
general

*687 Mr. Justice Brown, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. As, under Bev. Stat. § 709, a writ of error will go from this court only to the final, judgment of the highest court of the State in which a decision in the suit can be had, it is evident that our jurisdiction in this case cannot be sustained, unless an order of a judge at chambers remanding a prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding, can be regarded as an order of a “ court ” within the meaning of this section. We held, however, in Carper v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McKnight v. James. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supreme Court Jurisdiction Under § 709 of the Revised Statutes, a writ of error lies from the Supreme Court only to the final judgment of the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit can be had, and the Court's jurisdiction cannot be sustained unless the order sought to be reviewed is the order of a court within the meaning of that section.
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Habeas Corpus Appeals An appeal does not lie to the Supreme Court from an order of a circuit judge sitting as a judge at chambers, rather than as a court, discharging a prisoner brought before him on a writ of habeas corpus; where a statute gives an appeal only from the final decision of a circuit court, a judge's decision as judge is not the decision of a court, and a rule regulating appeals from the final decisions of courts, justices, or judges does not make it so.
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supreme Court Jurisdiction By analogy to the rule that a writ of error from the Supreme Court can go only to the highest court of a State, a writ of error will not lie to review the order of a judge at chambers.
  4. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supreme Court Jurisdiction Where an order is reviewable by the highest court of a State because it constitutes the judgment or decree of a lower court, it is not the order of a judge that avoids that court's appellate jurisdiction while simultaneously conferring jurisdiction on the Supreme Court; an order cannot be treated as the order of a judge to defeat state appellate review and as an order of a court to confer federal appellate jurisdiction, and a party must first seek review in the state's highest court or have the judge's order made the order of the court.
*687 Mr. Justice Brown,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

As, under Bev. Stat. § 709, a writ of error will go from this court only to the final, judgment of the highest court of the State in which a decision in the suit can be had, it is evident that our jurisdiction in this case cannot be sustained, unless an order of a judge at chambers remanding a prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding, can be regarded as an order of a “ court ” within the meaning of this section.

We held, however, in Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87, that an appeal did not lie to this court from an order of- a Circuit Judge of the United States,, sitting as a judge and not as a court, discharging a prisoner brought before him on a writ of habeas corpus,- for the reason that the act of March 3, 1885, c. 353, 23 Stat. 437, gave an appeal to this court in habeas corpus cases only from the final decision óf a circuit court; and that Buie 34 did not make his decision as pudge a decision of the court, the purpose of that rule being to regulate appeals to the Circuit Court from the final decision of any.court, justice, or judge inferior to that court, as well as appeals from the final decision of such Circuit Court to the Supreme Court. As a writ of error from this court can only go to the highest court of a State, it follows by analogy that it will not lie to review the order of a judge at chambers. ,

The jurisdiction of this court was treated in the brief of plaintiff in error as if it turned upon the question whether, under the practice in Ohio, a writ of error lay from the Supreme Court of that State to an order of a circuit judge at chambers . — 'the argument being that it did not, and hence that, such • judge was the highest court of the State in which a decision in the suit could be had, and a writ of error would, therefore, lie from this court.- In this view, petitioner should at least have applied to that court for a writ of error, or had the order of the circuit judge, at chambers made the order of the circuit court. If it be true that, under the laws of Ohio, the final order of a circuit judge at chambers be the judgment or decree of a circuit court) then it is undoubtedly reviewable. by the *688 Supreme Court of Ohio, which is the highest tribunal of Ohio, and is expressly given jurisdiction by statute to review the judgments and orders of the circuit court. But, if this order be not a judgment or decree of a court, then it is not reviewable here, because this court, under § 709, is given authority to review only the judgment and decree of the highest court of the State. In other words, the order cannot be thé order of a judge to defeat the jurisdiction in error of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and at the same time an order of a court to confer jurisdiction upon this court to issue a writ of error. The argument in reality defeats itself. Its very strength is also its weakness. By. proving that' a writ of error .will lie from this court, it also proves that a writ of error will lie from the Supreme Court of Ohio, and this fact of itself defeats the jurisdiction of this court. Whether the principle of this case applies to other than habeas .corpus cases we do not undertake to determine.

The writ of error must, therefore, be

Dismissed.