Highway Const. Co. v. McClelland
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BOOTH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs in error, defendants below, by this writ of error seek to review a judgment entered after verdict in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In the case of M. C. & L. M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382, 4 S. Ct. 510, 511 (28 L. Ed. 462), the Supreme Court laid down the following rule:
“On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Grace v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. WillardSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Nixon v. MichaelsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- Wright v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Barnes v. ParkerDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1954
- Dyar v. McCandlessCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- Hall v. BowmanDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1959
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.