Case Name: PERRETT v. CLARA KIMBALL YOUNG FILM CORPORATION
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1920-11-10
Citations: 269 F. 613
Docket Number: No. 14
Parties: PERRETT v. CLARA KIMBALL YOUNG FILM CORPORATION.
Judges: Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 269
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
PERRETT v. CLARA KIMBALL YOUNG FILM CORPORATION.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
November 10, 1920.)
No. 14.
Courts <@=>405(5)—Circuit Court of Appeals without jurisdiction, where jurisdiction of District Court as a federal court is involved.
Where the question is as to the jurisdiction of a District Court as a federal court, the judgment is reviewablc by the Supreme Court, under Judicial Code, § 238 (Comp. St. § 1215), and the Circuit Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction, under section 128 (Comp. St. § 1120).
<55^»For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Action at law by Leonce Perrett against the Clara Kimball Young Eilm Corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Jacobson & Pollock, of New York City (H. U. Jacobson and Henry W. Pollock, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Konta, Kirchwey, France & Michael, of New York City (K. W. Kirchwey, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The question in this case was as to the jurisdiction of the District Court as a federal court, and should have gone by writ of error to the Supreme Court. Section 128, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1120). Because we have no jurisdiction under that section (W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Co., 212 Fed. 156, 129 C. C. A. 12), the writ of error is dismissed.