Ex Parte Jones
Supreme Court of the United States
ORIGINAL. This was a petition for an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to allow an appeal to this court from a decree of that court affirming a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, dismissing the bill of Charles F. Jones against The Merchants’ National BanJc, of Boston; and also for a citation to such bank to appear and show cause why such decree should not be…
Read the full summary
ORIGINAL. This was a petition for an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to allow an appeal to this court from a decree of that court affirming a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, dismissing the bill of Charles F. Jones against The Merchants’ National BanJc, of Boston; and also for a citation to such bank to appear and show cause why such decree should not be corrected. The petition set forth, in substance, that petitioner recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court for the District of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brown
The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow an appeal in this case, upon the ground that its jurisdiction of the case was “ dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy, being . . . citizens of different States,” and, therefore, under section six of the Court of Appeals act of March, 1891, its decree' was final and not the subject of an auneal to this court.
Prior to the act of July 12,. 1882, c. 290, 22 Stat. 162, and the jurisdictional act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, 21 Stat. 552, as revised by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 133, 136, it had always…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. TurckSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. AmatoSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Buffum v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
- Pope v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Continental Nat. Bank of Memphis v. BufordSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.