United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co.
238 U.S. 140 (1915)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co., 238 U.S. 140 (1915)

United Surety Company v. American Fruit Product Company

No. 203

Submitted May 12, 1915

Decided June 14, 1915

238 U.S. 140


The right given to this Court by the sixth clause of § 250, Judicial Code, to reexamine the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in cases in which the construction of any law of the United States is drawn in question by the defendant is confined to the construction of laws of general application throughout the United States, and does not include laws local in their application to the District of Columbia. American Security & Trust Co. v. District of Columbia, 224 U. S. 491.

Quaere whether, under the third clause of § 250, Judicial Code, this Court may not examine the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia where the constitutionality of a statute of the United States, whether general or local to the District, is involved.

Sections 454 and 455 of the District Code are not unconstitutional because they provide that a surety, by executing the undertaking to release property attached, is bound by the judgment against the principal, although it has no right to be heard, whether the value of the property released be fixed by appraisal or by the court. Beall v. New Mexico, 16 Wall. 535.

A constitutional question that has no real foundation cannot be put forward as a mere pretext to open other questions that otherwise could not come before this Court. Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71.

Writ of error to review 40 App.D.C. 239 dismissed.

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

Page 238 U. S. 141

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.