Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
DAVIS AND RANKIN BUILDING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BARBER, 1895 — 157 U.S. 673 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
DAVIS AND RANKIN BUILDING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BARBER
157 U.S. 67339 L. Ed. 853·Supreme Court of the United States·1895
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
DAVIS AND RANKIN BUILDING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BARBER.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA.
No. 818.
Submitted March 25,1895.
Decided April 8, 1895.
On the authority of Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, and Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368, this case is dismissed for want of a certificate from the Circuit Court certifying the question of its jurisdiction for decision, here.
Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. George A. Knight and Mr. J. A. McNutt for the motion.
Mr. L. T. Michener and Mr. George Shirts opposing.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice:]
The Chief Justice:
This was an action brought against certain subscribers to a contract to recover damages for its breach. Defendants demurred upon the grounds that the. court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of-the action, and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. The demurrers were sustained and judgment rendered .in favor of defendants on June 28, 1892. The writ of error from this court was sued out February 16, 1894. It does not appear by the record, but is conceded by counsel, that a writ of error was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 60 Fed. Rep. 465. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked upon the ground that the only question in the case was as to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, but that question was not certified to this court by the Circuit Court for decision, and the writ of error must be dismissed upon the authority of Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Colvin v. Jacksonville, ante, 368; and cases cited.
Writ of error dismissed.