Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher,
227 U.S. 445 (1913)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 227 U.S. 445 (1913)

United States ex rel. Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher

Submitted January 21, 1913

Decided February 24, 1913

227 U.S. 445


Under subd. 5 of § 250 of the Judicial Code of 1911, a final judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia can only he reviewed by this Court in cases where the validity of any authority exercised under the United States, or the existence or scope of any power or duty of any officer of the United States, is drawn in question.

The meaning of the phrase "drawn in question," as it occurs in § 250 of the Judicial Code, is the same as in § 709, Rev.Stat.; § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act, and other statutes regulating territorial appeals.

A statute of the United States authorizing an officer to act in a certain manner under certain conditions is not drawn in question, nor is the scope or validity of authority of the officer acting thereunder drawn in question, simply because there is a controversy as to whether the specified conditions do or do not exist.

Where the Secretary of the Interior refused to issue a patent because a protest was pending, the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus

Page 227 U. S. 446

directed to him to issue the patent on the ground that there was no protest does not draw in question the validity or scope of his authority, but only the question of fact as to existence of a protest, and there is no jurisdiction in this Court under § 250 of the Judicial Code to review the judgment.

Writ of error to review 40 Wash. 780 denied.

The facts, which involve the construction of § 250 of the Judicial Code of 1911 and the jurisdiction of this Court to review judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.