General
UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL EXCH. BANK OF MILWAUKEE
53 F. 9·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1892
Before GRESHAM, Circuit Judge, and BLODGETT and JENKINS, District Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL EXCH. BANK OF MILWAUKEE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 11, 1892.)
Cibcuit Court or Appeals — Jurisdiction—Writ or Error.
The United States circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review a judgment rendered before the act creating that court (26 St. at Large, c. 517) was passed, where the amount claimed was too small to give jurisdiction to the supreme court, since there is nothing in said act giving it á retrospective effect.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Dismissed.
Elihu Colman, for plaintiff in error.
Van Dyke & Van Dyke, lor defendant in error.
Before GRESHAM, Circuit Judge, and BLODGETT and JENKINS, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — JENKINS, District Judge.]
JENKINS, District Judge.
This case was brought in the court below to recover of the defendant bank the sum of $1,259.05, and upon the trial, and on the 2d day of February, 1891, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant bank, (45 Fed. Rep. 163,) and writ of error to this court was sued out on the 29th day of July, 1891. The act creating this court was approved March 3, 1891, (26 St. c. 517.) At the time of the rendition of this judgment there existed no right to a review thereof by an appellate court. The amount claimed was less than the minimum amount necessary to give the supreme court power to entertain such review. We are of opinion that this court is without jurisdiction to review this judgment. We find no language in the act indicating an intention to make it retroactive. Such statutes should be given only a prospective operation, unless a contrary intent is expressed in the act. U. S. v. Heth, 3 Cranch, 399; Mayor v. Schermerhorn, 1 N. Y. 423, 426; Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374; In re Eager, 46 N. Y. 100; Railway Co. v. Judge, 10 Bush, 564; Rowell v. Railway Co., 59 N. H. 35; Vansittart v. Taylor, 4 El. & Bl. 910; In re Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co., 45 Law J. Ch. 11. Writ of error dismissed.