Capron v. Van Noorden
Opinion
6 U.S. 126 (____) 2 Cranch 126
CAPRON
v.
VAN NOORDEN.
Supreme Court of United States.
*127 Harper, for the plaintiff in error.
It is true, as a general rule, that a man cannot reverse a judgment for error in process or delay, unless he can shew that the error was to his disadvantage; but it is also a rule, that he may reverse a judgment for an error of the Court, even though it be for his advantage. As if a verdict be found for the debt, damages, and costs; and the judgment be only for the debt and damages, the defendant may assign for error that the judgment was not also for costs, although the error is for his advantage.
Here it was the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of parties could not give it.
It is therefore an error of the Court, and the plaintiff has a right to take advantage of it. 2 Bac. Ab. Tit. Error. (K. 4.) 8 Co. 59. (a) Beecher's case. 1 Roll. Ab. 759. Moor 692. 1 Lev. 289. Bernard v. Bernard.
The defendant in error did not appear, but the citation having been duly served, the judgment was reversed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 15 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that “[i]n order to have dismissed [supplemental state-law] claims with prejudice, the district court had to have exercised [subject-matter] jurisdiction over the claims”)
-
(judgment loser successfully raised lack of diversity jurisdiction for the first time before the Supreme Court)
-
(“[I]t [is] the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of the parties could not give it.”)
-
(a federal court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdictional power to decide the case)
-
("The Courts of the U.S. have not jurisdiction unless the record shews that the parties are citizens of different states, or that one is an alien, & c.”)
-
(“[I]t [is] the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of the parties could not Nos. 08-6014/6032 Answers in Genesis of Kentucky v. Page 7 Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd. give it.”)
Cited by 184 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court16
- U.S. Courts of Appeals64
- Federal District Courts65
- Federal Specialty Courts9
- Historical Federal Courts2
- State Highest Courts24
- State Appellate Courts3
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Struckman v. Warden, Pickaway Correctional Institution
- Sona Baro v. Todd Blanche
- Princess Property, LLC and Bluesol Biomedical, LLC v. Bradley W. Chenoweth and Randy J. Puetz
- Teagarden v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution
- Muhammad v. PNC Financial Services
- Prysmian Cables & Sys. USA, LLC v. United States
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.