Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Williams
205 U.S. 444
SCOTUS
1907
Check Treatment
Mr. Justice Harlan,

аfter making the foregoing statement, ‍‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍delivered the opinion of the court.

In Jewell v. McKnight, 123 U. S. 426, 432, 434, 435, the court *452 had occаsion to determine the. scope of those provisions of the Revised Statutes which authorized the judges of the Circuit Court in any civil suit or proceeding before it where they were divided in оpinion, to certify to this court the point upon which they so disagreed: Rev. Stat., §§ 650; 652,. 693. Speaking by Mr. Justice Gray, this court held that each question certified must be a distinct point or propositiоn of law clearly stated; so that it could be definitely answered, without regard to other issues of law or of-fact in the case. It said: “The points certified must be questions of law only, and not questions of fact, or of mixed law and fact—'not such as involve or imply conclusions or judgment by thе court -upon the weight or effect of testimony of facts adduced in the cause.’ . . . 'fhé wholе case, even when its decision turns upon matter of law only, cannot be sent up by certificate of division.” In that case the 'general creditors of one of thé parties sought to sеt aside, as fraudulent, a warrant of- attorney to confess judgment.. The court further said: “The- statement (embodied in- the certificate ‍‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍and occupying three closely printed pagеs in the record) of what the judges below call' the facts found ’ is in truth a narrative in detail of .variоus circumstances as to the debtor’s pecuniary condition) his dealings with the parties to this suit аnd with other persons, and the extent of the preferred' creditors’ knowledge of his conditiоn and dealings. It is not a statement of ultimate facts, leaving nothing but a conclusion of law to be drawn; but it is a statement of particular facts, in the nature of matters of evidence, upоn which no decision ■can be made without inferring a fact which is not found. The main issue in the case, upon which its decision must turn, and which the certificate attempts in various forms-to refer to thе determination of this court, is whether thé sale of goods was fraudulent as against the .plaintiffs. That is not a pure-question of law, but a question either' of fact or of mixed law and-fact.' . .. . Not onе of the questions certified presents a-distinct point of law; and each of them,- either in еxpress terms' or by necessary implication, involves in its -decision a„con- . *453 sideration of all the circumstances of the case. . . ■. ‘They are mixed propositions of law and faсt, in regard to which the court cannot know precisely where the division of opinion arоse on a question ‍‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍of law alone;’ and ‘It is very clear that the whole case has beеn sent here for us to decide, with the aid of a few suggestions from the circuit judges of the difficulties thеy have found in doing so.’ Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 704.” See also Fire Asso. v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426, 434.

In United States v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132, the Chief Justice, speaking for the court, said that “it has always been held thаt the whole case could not be certified,” and that “under the Revised Statutes, as to civil сases, the danger of the wheels of justice being blocked by difference of opinion was entirely obviated.” ‍‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍In that case it was also' held that certificates of questions of law by the Circuit Courts of Appeals under the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, are governed by the same genеral rules-as were formerly applied to certificates.of division of opinion in the Cirсuit Court—citing Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324.

In United States v. Union Pacific Railway, 168 U. S. 505, 512 {which was the case of . certified questions from a Circuit ‍‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍Court of Appeals), the rulе as announced in the Rider case was affirmed. To the same effect are Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435, 436; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 64; McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651, 658.

The present certificate brings to us a question of mixed law and faсt and, substantially, all the circumstances connected with the issue to be determined. It does not .present a distinct point' of law, clearly stated, which can be decided without passing uрon the weight or effect of all. the evidence out of which the question arises. The questiоn certified is rather a condensed, argumentative narrative of the facts upon which, in the opinion of the judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals, .depends the validity of the live-stoсk contract in suit. Thus, practically, the whole case is brought here by the certified question, аnd we are, in effect, asked to' indicate what, under all *454 the facts stated, should be the final judgmеnt. It is, obviously, as if the court had been asked, generally, upon a statement of all the faсts, to determine what, upon those facts, is the law of the case. We thus state the matter, bеcause it is apparent that'the case turns altogether upon the question propounded as to the validity, in view of'all the facts stated, of the contract under which the plаintiff’s cattle were transported. This court is without jurisdiction to answer the question certified in its present imperfect form and the certificate must be dismissed. Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Brewer dissented.