Case Name: BARR v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1896-03-09
Citations: 72 F. 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: BARR v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK et al.
Judges: Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and WALES, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 72
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
BARR v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
March 9, 1896.)
Oiecuit Courts op Appear — Jurisdiction.
The circuit courts of appeal have no jurisdiction, under sections 5 and 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, of an appeal in which the only question involved is whether the proposed acts of the mayor and council of a city would deprive the appellant of his property without due process of law, in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the Uidted States. McLish v. Rolf, 12 Sup. Ct. 118, 141 U. S. 661; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 12 Sup. Ot. 517, 144 TI. S. 47, followed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.
This was a suit in equity by Henry J. Barr to enjoin the city of New Brunswick and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company from taking com' plainant’s property under the power of eminent domain. The circuit court denied the injunction and dismissed the bill. 67 Fed. 402. From this decree complainant appealed, and defendants have now moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Charles E. Gummere, for appellees.
Before ACHESON, Circuit Judge, and WALES, District Judge.

Opinion:
ACHESON, Circuit Judge.
The only question in this appeal is whether the proposed acts of the appellees, the defendants below, under an ordinance of the city of New Brunswick, N, J., would be contrary to and in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, in that the same would deprive the appellant of his property without due process of law. Clearly, the case is one which "involves the construction or application of the constitution of the United States," or in which "the law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the constitution of the United States"; and therefore, under sections 5 and 6 of the act "To establish circuit courts of appeal," etc., approved March 3,1891, this court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the court below upon that question. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct. 118; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47, 56, 12 Sup. Ct. 517.
The motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction must be allowed. Appeal dismissed.