Matthews v. Zane, 8 U.S. 382 (1808)

U.S. Supreme Court

Matthews v. Zane

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 382

Syllabus

If two citizens of the same state, in a suit in a court of their state, claim title under the same act of Congress, this Court has an appellate jurisdiction to revise and correct the judgment of that court in such case.

Error to the state court of the State of Ohio under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, vol. 1, p. 63.

The plaintiff in error claimed title to land in the State of Ohio under the act of Congress, passed in 1800, and the decision of the state court was against him.

The defendant in error also claimed title to the same land, under the same act of Congress.

The question was whether in such a case this Court had an appellate jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a state court.

Page 8 U. S. 383

The Court at first hesitated as to the jurisdiction, but upon consultation together and deliberation,

U.S. Supreme Court

Matthews v. Zane

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 382

ERROR TO THE STATE COURT

OF THE STATE OF OHIO

Syllabus

If two citizens of the same state, in a suit in a court of their state, claim title under the same act of Congress, this Court has an appellate jurisdiction to revise and correct the judgment of that court in such case.

Error to the state court of the State of Ohio under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, vol. 1, p. 63.

The plaintiff in error claimed title to land in the State of Ohio under the act of Congress, passed in 1800, and the decision of the state court was against him.

The defendant in error also claimed title to the same land, under the same act of Congress.

The question was whether in such a case this Court had an appellate jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a state court.

Page 8 U. S. 383

The Court at first hesitated as to the jurisdiction, but upon consultation together and deliberation,

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL declared it to be the opinion of a majority of the judges that this Court has jurisdiction.

That the third article of the court of the United States when considered in connection with the statute, will not give it a more extensive construction than it might otherwise receive.

It is supposed that the act intends to give this Court the power of rendering uniform the construction of the laws of the United States and the decisions upon rights or titles claimed under those laws.