Montalet v. Murray
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
The Court was unanimously of opinion, that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between aliens.
Key then suggested, that perhaps it did not sufficiently appear upon the record, that the original parties to the notes were aliens ; But— Marshall, Ch. J., said, that if it did not appear upon the record, that the character of the original parties would support the jurisdiction, that objection was equally fatal, under the uniform decisions of this court.
Judgment reversed, for want of jurisdiction, and with costs, under the authority of Winchester v. Jackson (3 Cr. 514).
*30 But on the last day of the term, The Court gave the following general directions to the clerk. That in cases of reversal, costs do not go, of course, but in all cases of affirmance, they do. And that when a judgment is reversed, for want of jurisdiction, it must be, without costs.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“The Court was unanimously of the opinion that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between aliens.”)
-
(§ 14 of first Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 81, authorizes federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum)
Cited by 60 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court10
- U.S. Courts of Appeals18
- Federal District Courts18
- Historical Federal Courts6
- State Highest Courts6
- State Trial Courts1
- State Specialty Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Faysound Limited, a Corporation v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., United States Aviation Underwriters Incorporated
- Van Der Steen v. Sygen International, PLC
- New England Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Calhoun
- Portage City Water Co. v. City of Portage
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran
- Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein
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.