• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/275/62.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    GALLARDO v. SANTINI FERTILIZER CO, 275 U.S. 62 (1927)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    GALLARDO v. SANTINI FERTILIZER CO, 275 U.S. 62 (1927)

    275 U.S. 62

    Juan G. GALLARDO, Appellant,
    v.
    SANTINI FERTILIZER COMPANY.
    No. 164.

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued Oct. 5, 1927

    October 24, 1927 [275 U.S. 62, 63]   Mr. William Cattron Rigby, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

    Mr. Nelson Gammans, of New York City, for appellee.

    Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

    This is a bill in equity brought in the District Court of Porto Rico to restrain the collection of taxes imposed by the laws of Porto Rico. An injunction was issued by the District Court, on March 31, 1925. On April 7, 1925, an appeal was allowed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That court at first made a decree reversing the decree of the District Court, but later, on December 18, 1926, set that decree aside and transferred the case to this court, under the Act of September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837 (Comp. St. 1215a), conceiving that the jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked solely upon the ground that the controversy involved the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. On March 4, 1927, the Act of Congress (48 USCA 872) was passed that took away the jurisdiction of the District Court in this class of cases, as explained in Smallwood v. Gallardo, 275 U.S. 56 , 48 S. Ct. 23.

    The case has been argued upon the merits and also upon a motion to remand it to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that the appeal properly was taken to the court. As the only jurisdiction remaining anywhere is to make an order requiring the case to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction we need not discuss these [275 U.S. 62, 64]   matters. The decision that no jurisdiction remains comes from this court, and it is proper that it should carry out its decision without unnecessary circuity by directing it to be enforced.

    Decree reversed.

    Bill to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

    Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND was absent.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw