Press Publishing Co. v. Monroe
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mercury Records Corporation (2d Cir. 1955)
- Edward King, Also Known as Edward Kerr v. Michael MacRi Edward Kondek, Rudolf Marrero, Ann Tyler (2d Cir. 1993)
- MacMillan Co. v. I.V.O.W. Corp. (District Court, D. Vermont 1980)
- United States v. George E. Girard, Jr., Paul A. Lambert (2d Cir. 1979)
- Frederick Chusid & Co. v. Marshall Leeman & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
- Smith v. Little, Brown & Company (District Court, S.D. New York 1967)
- Basista v. Weir (3d Cir. 1965)
- Basista v. Weir (3d Cir. 1965)
- Continental Casualty Company v. Beardsley (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1928)
- Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (Supreme Court of the United States 1985)
- City of Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks Co. (6th Cir. 1902)
- Keyser v. Lowell (8th Cir. 1902)
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. Bell (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
- Barnett v. Kunkel (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
- Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. Town of Glenwood Springs (Supreme Court of the United States 1913)
- Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
- Russell v. Russell (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
- Board of Supervisors v. Thompson (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
- Watkins v. American National Bank (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
- Boise City Irr. & Land Co. v. Clark (9th Cir. 1904)
- Huguley Manufacturing Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
- Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)
- Pope v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
Of suits of a civil nature, at law or in equity, the Circuit Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, by reason of the citizenship of the parties, in cases between citizens of different States or between citizens of a State and aliens; and by reason of the cause of action,in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority,” including, of course, suits arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States. Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1; 25 Stat. 433; Rev. Stat. § 629, cl. 9. In order to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of a case as one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, that it does so arise must appear from the plaintiff’s own statement of his claim. Colorado Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138; Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Oregon &c. Railway v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490; Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 273.
From final judgments of the Circuit Court in civil suits an appeal or writ of error lies to this'court, or to the Circuit Court of Appeals. It lies directly to this court in any case in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is in issue; and in such case the question of jurisdiction only is certified to and decided by this court. It also lies directly from the Circuit Court to this court in cases involving the construction or application. of the Constitution, or the constitutionality of a law, or the validitjr or construction of a treaty, of the United States, *111 or in which the constitution or a law of a State, is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States; and in any of these cases the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not limited to the constitutional question, but extends to the determination of the whole case. Act of March 3,1891, c. 517, § 5; 26 Stat. 827, 828; Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 570; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499.
From final judgments of the Circuit Court-in all other civil suits an appeal or writ of error lies to the Circuit Court of Appeals; and the judgments rendered thereon by the Circuit Court of Appeals are final (unless this court, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, orders the whole case to be brought up for its decision) in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court “ is dependent entirely upon the parties being aliens and citizens of the United States, or citizens of different States; ” as well as in cases arising under the patent laws, or under the revenue laws. In all other civil actions (including those arising under the copyright laws of the United States), if the matter in controversy exceeds $1000, besides costs, there is, as of right, an appeal or writ of error to bring the case to this court. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6.
This plaintiff in error, having been defeated in the Circuit Court, did not bring the case directly to this court, as one involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or upon any other of the grounds specified in section 5 of the act of 1891. But it took the case, under section 6, to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and having been again defeated in that court, now claims, as of right, a review by this court of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals being made final in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is dependent entirely upon the parties being citizens of different States, but not final in cases arising under the copyright laws of the United States, where the matter in controversy exceeds $1000, the test of the appellate jurisdiction of this court over the case at bar is whether it was one arising under the copyright laws of the United States, or was one in which *112 the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court wholly depended upon the parties being citizens of different States.
The complaint, alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois and the defendant a citizen of New York, and claiming damages in a sum of more than $2000, showed that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case by reason of the parties being citizens of different States. The plaintiff, in her complaint, did not claim any right under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or in an}^ way mention or refer to that Constitution or to those laws; and, at the trial, she relied wholly upon a right given by the common law, and maintained her action upon such a right only. It was the defendant, and not the-plaintiff, who invoked the Constitution and laws.of the United States. This, as necessarily follows from the foregoing considerations, and as was expressly adjudged in Colorado Co. v. Turck, above cited, is insufficient to support the jurisdiction of this court to review, by appeal or writ of error, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court having been obtained and exercised solely because of the parties being citizens of different .States, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final, and the writ of error must be
Dismissed for loant of jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.