TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Callan v. Bransford

Callan v. Bransford; Jones v. Virginia; Gregory v. Bransford; Mallan v. Bransford; Lawson v. Bransford; Litchford v. Day; Dillard v. Moorman

Callan v. Bransford, 139 U.S. 197 (1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 16, 1891
Docket
No. 1,271
Judges
Fuller
Citations
139 U.S. 19711 S. Ct. 51935 L. Ed. 1441891 U.S. LEXIS 2372
Syllabus
When the highest court of a State dismisses a case upon the ground that the matters involved were purely pecuniary, and that the amount in controversy was less than sufficient to give the court, jurisdiction under the constitution of the State, no federal question arises. When the court cannot pass upon a motion to dismiss without referring to the transcripts on file, it will deny the motion without prejudice.
Summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OF LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA. Motion to advance, and motion to- dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases are brought here by writ of error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Yirginia, except Dillard v. Moorman, No. 1638, which is a writ of error to the Corporation Court for the city of Lynchburg. A motion is now made by plaintiff in error to advance, and a-motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant in error. It appears .from the motion papers that Callan v. Bransford, Treasurer, No. 1271, was carried to the Court of Appeals on writ of error to the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg, and that Gregory v. Bransford, Treasurer, No. 1595, Litchford v. Day, Sergeant, &c., No. 1598 and Lawson v. Bransford, Treasurer, No. 1597, were taken to that court by appeal.

The writ of error in the one case, and the appeals in the three others, were dismissed by the Court of Appeals upon the ground that the matters involved were purely pecuniary, and that the amount in controversy in each case was less than sufficient to give the court jurisdiction under the constitution of the State. This being so, we are of opinion that the writs' of error to that court must be dismissed, and it will be So ordered.

The motion papers in Jones v. The Commonwealth, No. 1594, Mallan Bros.

v. Bransford, Treasurer, No. 1596, and Dillard v. Moorman, Treasurer, No. 1638, are not such that we can pass upon the motions to dismiss without referring to the transcripts on file, which we ought not to be obliged to do. These motions and the motions to advance will be Denied, but without prejudice.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1908: 11913: 11937: 11958: 11960: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. General Oil Co. v. Crain209 U.S. 211 (1908)
  2. Staub v. City of Baxley355 U.S. 313 (1958)
  3. John v. Paullin231 U.S. 583 (1913)
  4. Wolfe v. North Carolina364 U.S. 177 (1960)
  5. Singer v. Illinois ex rel. Rusch300 U.S. 642 (1937)

Most recent

  1. Wolfe v. North Carolina364 U.S. 177 (1960)
  2. Staub v. City of Baxley355 U.S. 313 (1958)
  3. Singer v. Illinois ex rel. Rusch300 U.S. 642 (1937)
  4. John v. Paullin231 U.S. 583 (1913)
  5. General Oil Co. v. Crain209 U.S. 211 (1908)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list