Majority — Fullee C.J.
Syllabus
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is settled that the certification provided for in sections five and six of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826 , is governed by the rules laid down in respect of certificates of division under the Revised Statutes. Columbus Watch Company v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266 ; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324 ; Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435 ; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60 .
By those rules,- as repeated in these cases from prior decisions, “ each question had to be a distinct point or proposition of law, clearly stated, so that it could be distinctly answered without regard to the other issues of law in the case ; to be a question of law only, and not a question of fact, or of mixed law and fact, and hence could not involve or imply a conclusion or judgment upon the weight or effect of testimony or facts adduced in the case; and could not embrace the whole case, even where its decision turned upon matter of law only, and even though it was split up in the form of questions.” Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426 ; Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution, 128 U. S. 510 .
The questions propounded in this certificate do not present distinct points or propositions of law, clearly stated, so that each could be distinctly answered without regard to the other issues of law involved, and they obviously bring the whole case up for consideration and disposition.
Elaborate argument on behalf of the Government. was made at the bar, dealing with the Delaware treaties of 1831, 1854, 1860, 1861 and 1866, and the construction of various provisions thereof; with the construction of the Pacific Railroad act of July 1, 1862, c. 120, 12 Stat. 489 ; and'also with the legislation in relation to the incorporation of the Leavenworth, Pawnee and "Western Railroad Company; its change of name ; and consolidation with other railroad .companies, under the name of the Union Pacific Railway Company. Laws Kansas, 1855, c. 86, p. 914; Act of July 2,1864, c. 216, 13 Stat. 356 ; Resolution of March, 3, 1869, 15 Stat. 348 ; Act of March. 3, 1869, c. 127, 15 Stat. 324 .
To answer the questions certified would require us to consider the several matters thus pressed on our attention; to pass upon questions of law not specifically propounded; and to dispose of the whole case. It follows that the certificate is insufficient under the statute.
Certificate dismissed.
Cases cited
- Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins 148 U. S. 266 p. 511
- Maynard v. Hecht 151 U. S. 324 p. 511
- Graver v. Faurot 162 U. S. 435 p. 511
- Cross v. Evans 167 U. S. 60 p. 511
- Fire Insurance v. Wickham 128 U. S. 426 p. 511
- Dublin Township v. Milford Savings Institution 128 U. S. 510 p. 511