Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 U.S. 2

Brobst v. Brobst

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1866-12

This case came bere on a certificate of division from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The record showed a litigation in respect to an alleged fraud in obtaining a deed of large tracts of land by the principal defendant from tbe complainant.

1 counsel of record

Relies on De Sobry v. Nicholson · Sturdy v. Jackaway

Cited in Abbott (1879)’s definition of “Military”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Ex Parte Milligan (1867), Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago (1961)

16 federal appellate · 16 district · 14 state decisions

16018661870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

THIS case came here on a certificate of division from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

¶2

The record showed a litigation in respect to an alleged fraud in obtaining a deed of large tracts of land by the principal defendant from the complainant. The decree found the fraud alleged, and held the deed null as to the principal defendant, but stated that the judges were opposed in opinion on the question whether his four co-defendants, who claimed by deeds under him, were chargeable as privies to the fraud, and this question was accordingly certified to this court.

¶3

Messrs. Brent and Merrick moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

¶4

The question is one of fact, and can only be determined by an examination of the evidence in the record; and it has been repeatedly determined that only questions of law upon distinct points in a cause can be brought to this court by certificate.*

¶5

An order must be made, therefore, remanding this cause to the Circuit Court, without answer to the question certified, for want of jurisdiction.

*

Wilson v. Barnum, 8 Howard, 261.

/71/us/2 · .json · Public domain