From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gibbons v. Ogden

U.S.
Mar 8, 1821
19 U.S. 448 (1821)

Summary

In Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448, the first case presenting this issue to this Court, an injunction had been granted by a Chancery Court of the State of New York. The defendant answered and moved to dissolve the injunction.

Summary of this case from Building Union v. Ledbetter Co.

Opinion

March 8, 1821.

A decree of the highest Court of Equity of a State, affirming the decretal order of an inferior Court of Equity of the same State, refusing to dissolve an injunction granted on the filing of the bill, is not a final decree within the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. from which an appeal lies to this Court.

The cause was opened for the appellant, by Mr. D.B. Ogden, but on inspecting the record, it not appearing that any final decree in the cause, within the terms of the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. had been pronounced in the State Court, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


APPEAL from the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors of the State of New-York.

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff below, (Ogden,) against the defendant below, (Gibbons,) in the Court of Chancery of the State of New-York, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from navigating certain steam boats on the waters of the State of New-York, lying between Elizabethtown, in the State of New-Jersey, and the City of New-York: the exclusive navigation of which with steam boats had been granted, by the legislature of New-York, to Livingston and Fulton, under whom the plaintiff below claimed as assignee. On this bill an injunction was granted by the Chancellor, and on the coming in of the answer, which set up a right to navigate with steam boats between the City of New-York and Elizabethtown, under a license to carry on the coasting trade, granted under the laws of the United States, the defendant below moved to dissolve the injunction, which motion was denied by the Chancellor. The defendant below appealed to the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors, the decretal order, refusing to dissolve the injunction, was affirmed by that Court; and from this last order the defendant below appealed to this Court, upon the ground, that the case involved a question arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.


DECREE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors, of the State of New-York. On inspection whereof, it is ORDERED, that the appeal, in this cause, be, and the same is hereby dismissed, it not appearing from the record that there was a final decree in said Court for the Correction of Errors, c. from which an appeal was taken.

Vide 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 150. and 17 Johns. Rep. 488. where the learned reader will find the case reported as decided in the State Courts.


Summaries of

Gibbons v. Ogden

U.S.
Mar 8, 1821
19 U.S. 448 (1821)

In Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448, the first case presenting this issue to this Court, an injunction had been granted by a Chancery Court of the State of New York. The defendant answered and moved to dissolve the injunction.

Summary of this case from Building Union v. Ledbetter Co.
Case details for

Gibbons v. Ogden

Case Details

Full title:GIBBONS v. OGDEN

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 8, 1821

Citations

19 U.S. 448 (1821)
5 L. Ed. 302
6 U.S. (Wheat.) 448

Citing Cases

Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

n of the Judiciary Act of 1789 extends only to a final judgment or decree; and that a judgment reversing that…

Verden v. Coleman

Upon this decree this writ of error is prosecuted. This court has repeatedly decided that a decree upon a…