RATON WATERWORKS CO. v. CITY OF RATON 249 U.S. 552 (1919)

Mr. Abram J. Rose, of New York City, for Raton Waterworks Co.

Mr. John Henry Fry, of Denver, Colo., for City of Raton.

Memorandum Opinion by the CHIEF JUSTICE.

The certificate states that, in a cause pending before it on appeal from the District Court, the jurisdiction of [249 U.S. 552, 553]   the court below to entertain the cause on appeal was questioned on the ground that the judgment of the District Court was exclusively susceptible of being reviewed by direct appeal to this court. The certificate further states that the parties to the cause in the district court were both corporations of New Mexico and the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the suit was based solely upon the ground that it was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Resulting from these conditions the question which the certificate propounds is this: 'Has this court (the Circuit Court of Appeals) jurisdiction of the appeal?' The solution of the question is free from difficulty, since, whatever at one time may have been the basis for hesitancy concerning the question, the necessity for a negative answer is now conclusively manifest as the result of a line of decisions determining that, under the circumstances as stated, the Circuit Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction of the appeal as the exclusive power to review was vested in this court. Judicial Code, 128, 238 (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1133, 1157 [Comp. St. 1120, 1215]); American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U.S. 277 -281, 21 Sup. Ct. 646; Huguley Manufacturing Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 184 U.S. 290, 295 , 22 S. Sup. Ct. 452; Union Planter's Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71, 73 , 23 S. Sup. Ct. 604; Vicksburg v. Waterworks Co., 202 U.S. 453, 458 , 26 S. Sup. Ct. 660; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U.S. 305, 318 , 36 S. Sup. Ct. 293.

A negative answer to the question propounded is therefore directed.

And it is so ordered.