Case Name: CABOT v. McMASTER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-01-18
Citations: 65 F. 533
Docket Number: No. 207
Parties: CABOT v. McMASTER.
Judges: Before WOODS and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and BAKEK, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 65
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
CABOT v. McMASTER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
January 18, 1895.)
No. 207.
Circuit Courts op Appears — Review op Questions op Jurisdiction.
When, upon writ of error, the only question presented by the record goes to the jurisdiction of the court below, a review of tbe determination of that question can only be had in the supreme court
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
This was an action by Samuel Cabot against William I. McMaster upon a bond executed by defendant to secure the performance of a certain contract on the part of one Edwin A. Mason. At the trial the action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 61 Fed. 129.
Plaintiff sued out a writ of error.
Thomas Dent and Russell Whitman, for plaintiff in error.
J. P. Hand, Thomas E. Milchrist, and Ben. M. Smith, for defendant in error.
Before WOODS and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and BAKEK, District Judge.

Opinion:
JENKINS, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff brought suit in the court below in debt upon a bond in the penalty of $6,000, averring breaches to his damage $6,000, etc. The defendant pleaded (1) nil debet; (2) a traverse of the^breaches assigned; (3) performance and payment.' Issue was joined* by similiter to the first plea, and by replications concluding to the country as to the other pleas. At the trial before the court without a jury, the plaintiff put in evidence the bond and the agreement therein referred «to, and gave evidence tending to prove an indebtedness thereunder of $1,496. The defendant gave evidence tending to prove an extension of time of credit to the person for whom the plaintiff was bound, and the plaintiff, in rebuttal, gave evidence tending to prove that such extension was with the knowledge and concurrence of the defendant. The court thereupon, with; out passing upon the merits of the controversy, dismissed the causé for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the amount in controversy was less than the minimum amount necessary to give jurisdiction to the court. Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. 129.
We are without jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error. The dismissal of the suit proceeded solely upon the ground of want of jurisdiction, and there was no adjudication upon the merits. We have held in Manufacturing Co. v. Barber, 18 U. S. App.-, 9 C. C. A. 79, and 60 Fed. 465, that, when the only question presented by the record goes to the jurisdiction of the court below, a review of the determination of that question can only be had in the supreme court. See, also, Railroad Co. v. Meyers, 18 U. S. App.-, 10 C. C. A. 485, and 62 Fed. 367. The writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.