Bobyshall v. Oppenheimer
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
[At law. Actions on bail bonds by Boby-sball and Sower against Oppenheimer, and by the same against Oppenheimer and his sureties. For prior proceedings, see Cases Nos. 1,589-1,591.] These causes came before the court upon rules to show cause why the proceedings in both should not be stayed, and the causes dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and why the writ of inquiry, and all proceedings under it, in the first case, should not be quashed.
Read the full summary
[At law. Actions on bail bonds by Boby-sball and Sower against Oppenheimer, and by the same against Oppenheimer and his sureties. For prior proceedings, see Cases Nos. 1,589-1,591.] These causes came before the court upon rules to show cause why the proceedings in both should not be stayed, and the causes dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and why the writ of inquiry, and all proceedings under it, in the first case, should not be quashed. The ground upon which the first part of the rule, in the first of these cases, and the rule in the second, was rested was, that although the declaration in…
1Opinion of the CourtWashington, Circuit Justice
I.Upon the question of jurisdiction. We are authorized by decided cases to lay down the following positions:
1. That the circuit courts of the United States cannot entertain jurisdiction of causes at common law, or in equity, unless it be laid in the pleadings, and, that in the absence of such statement, no consent or agreement of the parties can uphold the jurisdiction. If it be not stated, no inference in favour of the jurisdiction can be drawn from the trial and the judgment in the cause. The first branch of this proposition is supported by many cases decided in the supreme court; and the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ex Parte BradstreetSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Davis v. PackardCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830