Case Name: PULLMAN'S PALACE-CAR CO. v. CENTRAL TRANSP. CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1897-10-01
Citations: 83 F. 1
Docket Number: No. 37
Parties: PULLMAN’S PALACE-CAR CO. v. CENTRAL TRANSP. CO.
Judges: Before SHIRAS, Circuit Justice, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 83
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
PULLMAN’S PALACE-CAR CO. v. CENTRAL TRANSP. CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
October 1, 1897.)
No. 37.
CONCUKRRNT APPIJAM TO SuPKKJLK COURT AND TO CIRCUIT COURT OB' APPEALS.
Where an appenl is taken to 1lie supremo court direct, on the ground that the case involve» the construction or application of the constitution of I he United States, and an appeal is also taken, to the circuit, court of appeals, the latter court, will stay its hand until the appeal in the supreme court is disposed of, and wi’l not in the meantime certify to the supreme court the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This was a bill in equity by the Pullman’s Palace-Car Company against the Central Transportation Company. In the circuit court a decree was rendered, in favor of the latter company on a cross bill, and Hie cause referred to a master to ascertain the value of the property in question. 65 Fed. 158. On the coming in of the master’s report, the circuit court approved his findings and conclusions of law, and decreed accordingly. 72 Fed. 211. From this decree the Pullman’s Palaee-Oa.r Company took an appeal to the supreme court under the fifth section of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, on the ground that the case involved the construction or application of the constitution of the United States; and it subsequently took an appeal to this court also, under the sixth section of that act. Heretofore a motion was made to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that it was void because taken while the appeal to the supreme court was still pending and undetermined, which motion was denied. 70 Fed. 401. The appeal to the supreme court is stilJ undeiermined, and a motion is now made that this court certify to the supreme court the question whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause.
Joseph H. Choate and Edward S. Isham, for the motion.
Frank P. Prichard, opposed.
Before SHIRAS, Circuit Justice, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

Opinion:
SHIBAS, Circuit Justice.
This is a motion asking us to certify to
the supreme court the question whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause. Upon a former occasion we felt constrained to refrain from passing on the merits of the case while it was pending on an appeal to that court. 76 Fed. 401. Nor do we now perceive that any useful result would be promoted by granting the present motion. Until the supreme court shall have determined the questions there pending, on the appeal and on the motion to dismiss the appeal, this court thinks it would not be proper to deal with the case on its merits, and it may be that the action of the supreme court may relieve this court from any further duty in the case.