Case Name: In re ASPINWALL'S ESTATE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1898-11-21
Citations: 90 F. 675
Docket Number: No. 45
Parties: In re ASPINWALL'S ESTATE.
Judges: Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLEK and BRADFORD, District Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 90
Pages: 675–680

Head Matter:
In re ASPINWALL'S ESTATE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
November 21, 1898.)
No. 45,
September Term.
3. CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS — JURISDICTION— CASK INVOLVING JURISDICTION op Ciucuit Court.
Where a circuit court remands a cause to the state court on the ground of a lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of it, the case is one in which the jurisdiction of a circuit court is in issue, within the terms of section 5 of the act creating the circuit court of appeals, and is therefore excluded by section 6 from the cases of which that court is given jurisdiction by such section.
2. A-I’I’EALABLE ORDERS — REMANDING CAUSE — CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS ACT.
The provision of the judiciary act of August 18, 1888, that no appeal shall lie from an order of the circuit court remanding- a cause to a state court, was not repealed by the act of March 8, 3891, creating the circuit courts of appeals. In re Coe, 1 C. C. A. 328, 49 Fed. 481, followed.
3. Circuit Court op Appeals — Jurisdictional Questions —Following Decisions in Other Circuits.
Where a, circuit court of appeals for one circuit has determined a question of its own jurisdiction, the circuit courts of appeals for others circuits should follow its decision, for the sake of uniformity of decision on jurisdictional queslions, until flie question has been settled by the supreme court.
Bradford, District Judge, dissenting, on last point.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On motion to dismiss appeal.
Win. Drayton and John P. Johnson, for the motion.
D. T. Watson, opposed.
Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLEK and BRADFORD, District Judges.

Opinion:
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
When this case was reached at the present term, it appeared that a motion to dismiss the appeal had been interposed; and that motion, after argument, it was announced would be granted. No formal dismissal of the appeal was, however, then entered, because we thought that the order should be accompanied by a shdement of the grounds upon which it was based. Such a statement will now be made, but very briefly, and without elaboration.
1. The decision of ihe circuit court, which was appealed from, adjudged that ihe proceeding, which had been brought into that court by removal from the orphans' court of Allegheny county, Pa., should be remanded to the last-mentioned court. 83 Fed. 851. The remanding order was expressly founded solely upon the lack of jurisdiction in the circuit court to take cognizance of the cause; and the question before us is, has this court jurisdiction to review such a decision of the circuit court? If it lias, it must be because it: is conferred upon it by section 6 of tbe act of March 3, 1891. Now, by that section it is provided that the circuit courts of appeals shall exercise appellate jurisdiction to review final decisions of the circuit courts only in cases other than those provided for in section 5 of the same act; and, turning to section 5, we find it to be there provided that appeals or writs of error may be taken from tbe circuit courts direct to the supreme court in any case in which the jurisdiction of a circuit court is in issue. We are all of opinion that the necessary effect of these provisions is to deny to this court the jurisdiction which in this case it has been asked to assume.
2. This question was before the circuit court of appeals for the First circuit in Re Coe, 1 C. C. A. 326, 49 Fed. 481; and it was there held that the disallowance of an appeal from an order remanding a cause to the state court in which it had originated was proper. It has been urged in argument that the reasons given for the judgment in that case are unsound, but that contention is, in our view of the matter, irrelevant. We believe it to be our duty to follow that judgment, not for the reasons assigned in its support, which it is not necessary either to adopt or to reject, but because uniformity of decision amongst the several courts of appeals upon such a jurisdictional question seems to us to be of paramount importance. It will not result from acceptance of this view of the subject that an error once committed would be indefinitely perpetuated, for the supreme court may at any time settle such questions for all the courts of appeals alike. An order will now be entered dismissing the appeal, with costs.