Case Name: CITY OF PADUCAH v. HAST TENNESSEE TELEPHONE CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-11-17
Citations: 182 F. 625
Docket Number: No. 2,028
Parties: CITY OF PADUCAH v. HAST TENNESSEE TELEPHONE CO.
Judges: Before SEVERENS, WARRINGTON, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 182
Pages: 625–625

Head Matter:
CITY OF PADUCAH v. HAST TENNESSEE TELEPHONE CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
November 17, 1910.)
No. 2,028.
Courts (§ 385 ) — Federal Supreme Court — .Jurisdiction—Constitutional Questions.
Where federal jurisdiction depended entirely on whether a state law was in violation of the federal Constitution, and all the other questions involved the merits, an appeal lay direct from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, and not to the Circuit Court of Appeals, as provided by the Circuit Court of Appeals act (Act March 2, 1891, c. 501, § 5, 26 Stat. 826).
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 1022; Dee. Dig. § 385,*J ’
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky.
Action by the City of Paducah against the East Tennessee Telephone Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Dismissed.
James Campbell (Hal S. Corbett, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Vertrees, Wheeler & Hughes, and William D. Granberry, for appellee.
Before SEVERENS, WARRINGTON, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this case the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the parties being citizens of the same state, depended entirely upon the question whether a law of the state of Kentucky was in contravention of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States forbidding the impairment of the obligations of contracts by state legislation, and of section 1 of the fourteenth améndment thereof, forbidding legislation by any state which shall deprive any person of property without due process of law. All other questions involved were such as concerned the merits. In such cases an appeal lies only to the Supreme Court of the United States, as prescribed by section 5 of the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals (Act March 2, 1891, c. 501, 26 Stat. 826). Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 23 Sup. Ct. 604, 47 L. Ed. 712; McFadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 29 Sup. Ct. 490, 53 U. Ed. 801; Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks, 115 Fed. 318, 53 C. C. A. 146.
The appeal must be dismissed.